Linda M. Smits

The applicants sought declarations and injunctive relief concerning a 15‑foot-wide strip of land subject to express rights of way benefiting four adjacent cottage properties in a Lake Huron subdivision.

The respondents, who had acquired ownership of the strip, erected a fence and locked gate to deter alleged trespass by other residents.

The court held that the easement, granted “for all purposes,” was among the broadest possible forms of right of way and had historically been exercised without restriction.

The installation of a fence and locked gate requiring keys substantially interfered with the applicants’ ability to exercise the easement conveniently and was not justified by the respondents’ evidence of trespass concerns.

Mandatory and prohibitory injunctions were granted requiring removal of the fence and prohibiting future obstructions without authorization, and the respondents’ counter‑application seeking validation of the barrier was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a Registrar’s administrative dismissal of an action for delay under Rule 48.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The action had previously been stayed by court order under s. 7(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991 in favour of arbitration pursuant to a contractual arbitration clause.

The court held that a judicial stay places the proceeding in suspended animation such that the parties cannot take further procedural steps and the administrative timelines under Rule 48.14 cannot operate.

The Registrar therefore lacked jurisdiction to issue a status notice and dismissal order while the action remained stayed.

The administrative dismissal and resulting certificate of assessment of costs were set aside and the action remained stayed pending arbitration.