Nicholas A. G. Lovell

The Grey Sauble Conservation Authority (GSCA) sought a declaration that it is the proper owner of a parcel of land (PIN 37092-0350(R)) within the Hibou Conservation Area.

The respondent, Leroy David Dirckx, claimed title based on a chain of title beginning in 2013.

The court reviewed the historical chain of title, the registry and land titles systems, and allegations of a fraudulent scheme to create a false chain of title.

The court found that GSCA had established ownership by chain of title and, alternatively, by adverse possession.

The court granted a vesting order in favour of GSCA and extinguished any claim of Dirckx or others to the property.

The Plaintiff, Saugeen Economic Development Corporation, sought to enforce a second mortgage against the property of the Defendants, Karl and Karen Peuser.

The Defendants brought a cross-motion for summary judgment to discharge the mortgage, arguing the Plaintiff had surrendered its security interest during their respective bankruptcy proceedings by filing an amended proof of claim as an unsecured creditor.

The court found no express or implied surrender of the security interest, noting that the Plaintiff's actions were consistent with the security having no value at the time of bankruptcy and did not prejudice other creditors.

Consequently, the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the Defendants' cross-motion was dismissed.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing his application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Board found that the tenancy was exempt from the Residential Tenancies Act under s. 5(i) because the tenant was required to share a kitchen and bathroom with the landlord's daughter.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Board's interpretation of the exemption or its factual findings regarding the daughter's residency and use of the shared facilities.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The respondent submitted their costs, while the appellant chose not to make any submissions.

The court awarded costs to the respondent in the amount of $7,500, inclusive of disbursements and all relevant taxes.

The appellant, acting as estate trustee, appealed a judgment denying her application to set aside a municipal tax sale of a property previously owned by her deceased parents.

She argued the municipality failed to provide her with proper notice of the sale and acted in bad faith.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the municipality strictly complied with the notice requirements under the Municipal Act, 2001 by sending registered letters to the assessed owners at their last known addresses.

The court held that the municipality owed no additional duty of good faith to notify the appellant, who had not registered her interest on title or updated the municipal tax rolls.

The Municipality of the Northern Bruce Peninsula appealed a decision of the Ontario Court of Justice that had quashed convictions for breaches of the Building Code Act, 1992.

The appeal judge had applied an outdated limitation period under section 36(8) of the BCA, relying on R. v. Pickles, which held that the one-year limitation period ran from the date construction was completed.

However, section 36(8) had been amended on July 1, 2010, to provide that the limitation period commenced from the date the facts first came to the knowledge of an officer or chief building official.

The Court of Appeal found that the prosecution was instituted within one year of the Municipality's initial knowledge of the structure and that the appeal judge had erred in law by applying the wrong limitation period.

The convictions and sentences were reinstated.

This endorsement addresses costs following a successful application by the respondents.

The respondents, Bart Toby and the Town of Saugeen Shores, sought substantial indemnity costs, or partial indemnity, while Weichold Limited sought partial indemnity.

The applicant argued for no costs or partial indemnity.

The court determined the matter was not complex or novel and awarded partial indemnity costs to all respondents, noting that an offer to settle by Toby and Saugeen Shores, though served too late for full substantial indemnity, would have avoided the hearing.