John Raymond Crouchman

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a permanent injunction and damages of $50,000, alleging an actionable nuisance caused by the defendants' commercial equipment (a compressor and coffee roaster flue) emitting noise, smell, smoke, and heat.

The defendants asserted that summary judgment should be granted in their favour, dismissing the action.

The court found that there were genuine issues requiring a trial regarding both the existence of an actionable nuisance and the appropriate remedy, given conflicting evidence from witnesses and experts.

The court emphasized that summary judgment is a blunt tool for balancing interests, especially when permanent injunctive relief is claimed, and that a full appreciation of evidence from a trial is necessary for a fair and just adjudication.

The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and the defendants' request for "boomerang summary judgment" was also declined due to procedural unfairness.

The applicants sought a declaration of ownership and vesting order over a triangular waterfront parcel based on adverse possession.

The claim relied on decades of community use by a local residents’ association that maintained a dock, stored boats, and used the area for recreational access to the river.

The court accepted that the use was open, notorious, peaceful, and continuous for many years and arose from a mutual mistake about the boundary between adjoining lots.

However, the applicants failed to prove that their possession was adverse and exclusive, as the legal owners and their lessees continued to use the land alongside the group.

Because the owners’ possession was never discontinued and no intention to exclude them was established, the elements of adverse possession were not satisfied.