Marc Kemerer

Hydro One Networks Inc. appealed a decision denying its claim for a permanent prescriptive easement over a road on the respondent's land, which provides access to its transmission lines.

The application judge had found Hydro One's use was not "as of right" or "continuous." The Court of Appeal found that the application judge misapprehended the evidence regarding the frequency and nature of Hydro One's use, which was sufficient to meet the "continuous" requirement.

The Court also determined that Hydro One's post-2008 interactions with the respondent, aimed at accommodation, did not negate the "as of right" character of its use established prior to the land's registration under the Land Titles Act in 2008.

The appeal was allowed, and the prescriptive easement was declared.

The plaintiffs, CRH Canada Group Inc. and intervenor Nelson Aggregates, sought an interlocutory injunction against the Ontario Aggregate Trucking Association, Ontario Dumptruck Association, and several individuals.

The defendants were blocking access to the plaintiffs' business facilities to compel an increase in haulage rates and impose a fuel surcharge.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test, finding a serious issue to be tried in nuisance and unlawful interference with private property rights, irreparable harm due to economic impact and difficulty in collecting damages, and that the balance of convenience strongly favored the plaintiffs.

The defendants did not appear or file materials.

The injunction was granted, prohibiting blockades and interference with access, while affirming the defendants' right to lawful, peaceful protest.

The applicant, Hydro One Networks Inc., sought a declaration of a permanent easement over a portion of the respondent's land to access its existing transmission line easement, based on claims of prescriptive easement or lost modern grant.

The respondent disputed the continuous use and asserted that Hydro One had sought permission.

The court dismissed the application, finding that Hydro One failed to prove its use was "as of right" due to evidence of seeking permission, and that its infrequent use (once a year at most) did not meet the "continuous" requirement for a prescriptive easement.

The applicant sought to quash a resolution adopted by the City of Toronto directing negotiations for a Voluntary Recognition Agreement with a specific union.

The applicant argued the resolution was discriminatory and created an unlawful monopoly.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the City has the authority under the City of Toronto Act, 2006 to manage its labour relations and pass bylaws respecting its construction projects.

The court noted that the validity of any resulting agreement would be a matter for the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) decision that required it to contribute to the maintenance and repair costs of a haul route in a neighbouring municipality as a condition of its quarry licence.

The moving party argued the OMB lacked jurisdiction under the Aggregate Resources Act, the Municipal Act, and related regulations to impose such a condition.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the OMB's interpretation of its home statutes and related legislation was reasonable and entitled to deference.