Michael Lerner

This property boundary dispute concerned competing applications over a triangular strip and adjoining open lawn between neighbouring Port Stanley properties.

The court held that adverse possession was established only for the enclosed triangular area within the existing picket fence, based on long-standing actual possession, inferred intention to exclude, and effective exclusion.

The broader claim to the open lawn extending by a projected fence line failed because the evidence did not establish actual possession, intention to exclude, mutual mistake, demarcation, or effective exclusion during the relevant pre-conversion period under the Land Titles Act.

The alternative claim in proprietary estoppel also failed for want of encouragement, detrimental reliance, and unconscionable advantage.

The appellant tenant and respondent landlord disagreed over the interpretation of their commercial lease on two points: whether the leased premises included a parking area owned by the City of London and licensed to the landlord, and whether the landlord's right to exclusive use of office space permitted the landlord to lease that space to a third party.

The application judge found against the tenant on both points.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision regarding the parking area but reversed on the office space issue, finding that the lease language clearly distinguished between "use" (reserved exclusively to the landlord) and "access or entry" (afforded to the landlord and invitees), and therefore the landlord could not lease the office to a third party.