3 total
Boundary confirmed based on historic stone row as best evidence of original monuments.
The applicants sought confirmation of the boundary between their property and the objectors' property under the Boundaries Act.
The applicants' surveyors relied on a historic stone row as the best evidence of the original boundary line, which resulted in the boundary cutting through a portion of an existing barn.
The objectors argued for a different boundary line based on a cut line made by a previous owner, which would place the entire barn on their property.
The Deputy Director of Titles accepted the applicants' survey evidence, finding that the stone row was constructed when the original monuments were in place and well known, and thus constituted the best available evidence of the boundary under the hierarchy of evidence rule.
The objection was dismissed and the boundary was confirmed as proposed by the applicants.
Unclear mortgage extension interest terms triggered statutory 5 percent rate under Interest Act.
The plaintiff mortgagee brought a motion for summary judgment seeking foreclosure without a reference on a mortgage securing approximately $104,985.53.
The parties agreed on the outstanding balance but disputed the applicable interest rate under a series of unconventional mortgage extension agreements that referenced a dollar amount per day rather than a percentage.
The court held that the agreements did not clearly establish an agreed interest rate and therefore s. 3 of the Interest Act applied, fixing the rate at 5 percent per annum.
The court also assessed substantial indemnity costs but reduced the amount claimed as modestly excessive under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Judgment for foreclosure was granted with interest calculated at the statutory rate.
Farm purchasers liable for $18,000 reimbursement under valid farm preparation agreement.
The plaintiff corporation brought an action seeking unpaid rent for farmland and payment under a written agreement requiring reimbursement for soil preparation work performed for a future crop.
The defendants counterclaimed for conversion of a logging skidder.
The court found the rent claim statute-barred.
After reviewing banking records and witness evidence, the court concluded the defendants had substantially paid their share of the skidder, defeating the conversion counterclaim.
The court further held that the written agreement requiring payment for farm preparation work was valid and not induced by economic duress, and judgment was granted for $18,000 plus pre‑judgment interest.
