Matthew Jarrett

The appellants appealed the application judge's finding of a prescriptive easement over portions of their property in favour of the respondents' neighbouring property.

The appellants argued that the application judge misapprehended evidence regarding whether the gravel driveway remained unchanged over the relevant period and reversed the onus of proof.

The Court of Appeal found no error, holding that the application judge's reliance on aerial photographs and witness testimony was open to her and that she did not reverse the burden of proof on the prescriptive easement claim.

Appeal dismissed with costs of $10,000 to the respondents.

The defendant moved under r. 21.01(3)(d) to strike the plaintiff's second summary judgment motion seeking damages for loss of value of a property arising from a failed real estate transaction, arguing the claim was barred by res judicata and constituted an abuse of process.

A prior summary judgment by Goodman J. had awarded the plaintiff partial damages but dismissed the loss-of-value claim for failure to adduce proper expert valuation evidence.

The court found that both issue estoppel and cause of action estoppel applied, as the same issue had been decided in the prior final proceeding between the same parties.

The court also rejected the plaintiff's argument that r. 20.07 permitted a fresh claim for the same head of damages previously dismissed, holding that the rule applies only to relief not covered in the original motion.

The defendant's motion was granted and the plaintiff's second summary judgment motion was dismissed with costs of $7,500.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of an application challenging the validity of a will.

The applicant sought to set aside the deceased's 2016 will on grounds of lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence, and improper execution.

The court dismissed the application, finding the will was duly executed and that the applicant's allegations were unsupported.

The respondent sought substantial indemnity costs, which were awarded on the basis of the respondent's settlement offers and the applicant's reprehensible litigation conduct in making unfounded allegations of fraud and undue influence.

This is a costs decision following an application for property rights over portions of the respondents' property.

The applicants sought either ownership by adverse possession or a prescriptive easement over a driveway area and a gravel parking and lawn area.

The applicants were substantially successful, obtaining an easement of vehicular ingress and egress over the driveway area and an order requiring the respondents to remove obstructing items.

However, the applicants' claim for adverse possession of the parking and lawn area was dismissed.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the applicants in the amount of $36,000.00, all inclusive, finding that while the respondents' conduct was un-neighbourly and antagonistic, it did not rise to the level of reprehensible, scandalous or outrageous behaviour warranting substantial indemnity costs.

This is an appeal from a motion judge's decision dismissing a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) motion.

The appellants (defendants in the original action) sought to dismiss Canadian Tire's fraud action, arguing it arose from their expressions related to public interest (complaints about privacy violations and defective products).

The motion judge found the action did not arise from an expression and that the plaintiff's motive was irrelevant at the threshold stage of a SLAPP analysis under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Court of Appeal affirmed this, holding that a plaintiff's motive is not a relevant factor at the first stage of the SLAPP analysis, which is restricted to determining if the action arises from an expression related to a matter of public interest.

The appeal on costs was also dismissed, as the motion judge properly exercised discretion.

The applicant, a tenant operating a medical office, brought an urgent motion to compel the respondent landlord to repair and remediate the building due to significant disrepair, including a leaking roof, mold, and pests.

The applicant also sought an order for base rent to be paid into court and a commercial business standards reconciliation.

The respondent denied the allegations, stating repairs were underway, and questioned the applicant's motives, noting the application was commenced after he refused an offer to purchase the building.

The court granted the motion in part, ordering specific remedial work to be completed by the respondent.

However, the requests for rent payment into court (based on constructive eviction or security for costs) and forensic accounting were dismissed, as the court found the high bar for constructive eviction was not met and the other issues were not urgent or properly pleaded.