Kayla Carr

The applicants sought a declaration of possessory title over a three-foot strip of land abutting their cottage property.

The court found that while the applicants had actual possession of the disputed lands, they failed to establish an intention to exclude the true owners or that they effectively excluded them.

The disputed lands were open and accessible to the community, and the true owners frequently crossed and used the lands without restriction.

The application for adverse possession was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion to consolidate two Hamilton applications regarding the administration of their late father's estate with a related Toronto action.

The plaintiff and her brother, the defendant, are co-executors and sole beneficiaries of the estate, and their relationship has irrevocably broken down.

The court granted the motion, converting the applications into actions and consolidating them with the Toronto action, finding that the proceedings arise from the same series of transactions and that consolidation would avoid a multiplicity of proceedings and the risk of inconsistent findings.

The applicant Estate Trustees sought the court's opinion and advice on interpreting a clause in the testator's will that granted one of her sons an option to purchase her 'farming business' for a fixed price.

The son argued that the testator's rental of the farm property to him constituted carrying on the farming business.

Applying the armchair rule, the court found that the testator intended the phrase to mean the active farming business she and her late husband had previously operated, not the passive rental of land.

As the testator was not carrying on the active farming business at her death, the option to purchase was declared ineffective and the farm property fell into the residue of the estate.