Chantelle Joanne Cindy-Marie Bryson

The decision addresses motions by the Attorney General of Canada and the Corporation of the City of Kenora to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ claim as statute-barred under Rule 21.01(1)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Plaintiffs, three Anishinaabe Nations, seek the return of or a declaration of trust over lands known as Anicinabe Park, alleging breaches of statutory, fiduciary, and constitutional duties by Canada and Kenora.

The Court finds that it is not plain and obvious, on the pleadings, that the lands were not reserve lands or that the claim does not arise from a treaty right.

As such, the Real Property Limitations Act does not clearly bar the claim, and the motions are dismissed.

The decision concerns a motion to strike brought by the City of Kenora and individual defendants against 5901058 Manitoba Ltd.'s action regarding a failed land development transaction.

The plaintiff alleged breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, constructive taking, and misfeasance in public office after the City refused to sell municipal land as agreed, instead pursuing a sale to the Ontario Provincial Police.

The court dismissed most grounds for striking, allowing the plaintiff’s claims (except for misfeasance in public office) to proceed, finding they disclosed reasonable causes of action.

The applicant sought a declaration determining a property line and an order for fence removal, arguing encroachment based on surveys.

The respondents contended the fence was on a historically agreed boundary and that the application was unsupported by evidence, affected a non-party (Green Point Campers’ Association - GPCA), and was statute-barred.

The court dismissed the application without prejudice, finding that GPCA, as the freehold owner, was a necessary party whose participation was crucial for a proper determination of the boundary dispute, and that the applicant was not qualified to represent GPCA's position or its conversion plans.

The plaintiffs claimed title by adverse possession of a strip of land.

Both the plaintiffs and the defendant brought motions to enforce purported binding settlement agreements.

The plaintiffs sought to enforce their June 28, 2021 offer, which they claimed was accepted by the defendant on August 19, 2021.

The defendant denied this and sought to enforce her November 22, 2021 offer, which she claimed was accepted by the plaintiffs on November 30, 2021.

The court applied contract law principles, requiring mutual intention and agreement on all essential terms.

The court found that there was no clear and unequivocal agreement on the essential term of the property description to be conveyed in either purported settlement.

Consequently, both motions to enforce settlement were dismissed.

The Moving Defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss tort claims by Correct Building Corporation (CBC) arising from an aborted development project.

CBC, a related corporate entity to Correct Group Inc. (CGI), was not a party to the preliminary agreement with the City of Barrie but anticipated being awarded the construction contract.

The court applied the *Cooper v. Hobart* test for duty of care, finding no reasonable foreseeability of harm or sufficient proximity between CBC and the Moving Defendants.

The court also cited policy reasons against extending a duty of care to potential subcontractors.

The motion was granted, and CBC's claims against the Moving Defendants were dismissed.