Amy Tieu

In an appeal concerning adverse possession of municipal parkland, the appellants sought possessory title to a fenced portion of backyard land registered to the municipality.

The majority held that recognizing a common law immunity for municipal parkland would conflict with Ontario’s statutory scheme under the Real Property Limitations Act and related legislation, which preserves matured possessory claims unless a statutory exception applies.

Because the statutory test for adverse possession was satisfied and no applicable statutory immunity barred the claim, the municipality’s title had been extinguished.

The appeal was allowed and the appellants were entitled to fee simple title to the disputed land.

The plaintiff brought a defamation action against the defendant, a municipal employee, for statements she made at a Business Improvement Area (BIA) annual general meeting regarding his eligibility to serve on the board.

The defendant brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the action.

The court granted the motion, finding that the expression related to a matter of public interest, the defendant had valid defences including statutory immunity and qualified privilege, and the public interest in protecting the expression outweighed the minimal harm suffered by the plaintiff.

The defendant, a Toronto City Councillor, brought a motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss a defamation action brought by the plaintiff auto parts business.

The action arose from comments the councillor made during a Scarborough Community Council meeting regarding complaints from a neighbouring Royal Canadian Legion branch about the plaintiff's conduct.

The court granted the motion, finding that the councillor's expression related to a matter of public interest.

The plaintiff failed to establish that the councillor's defences of qualified privilege, fair comment, and statutory immunity had no real prospect of success.

Furthermore, the public interest in protecting the councillor's expression outweighed the minimal evidence of harm suffered by the plaintiff.

The City of Toronto sought permission to issue a writ of seizure and sale against Ms. Mohammadi-Kia, more than six years after a 2004 civil judgment for social assistance fraud restitution.

Ms. Mohammadi-Kia, self-represented, opposed the motion, arguing unjust conviction, inadequate legal representation, limited means, a belief the debt was waived, and that the target property was not hers.

The court allowed the City to issue the writ, finding the City adequately explained its delay and did not intend to waive the debt.

While Ms. Mohammadi-Kia genuinely believed the debt was no longer pursued, she failed to demonstrate detrimental reliance.

The court also declined to award costs to the City, noting its delay in seeking the writ.