Michael E. Caruso

Brar Corp. (Applicant) sought a declaration of an easement over Regina Properties Ltd.'s (Respondent) adjoining property, an order to amend legal descriptions, an injunction, and damages.

Regina Properties Ltd. (Cross-Applicant) sought to vacate a registered notice of interest and an injunction against parking.

The court found that Regina Properties Ltd. had granted a license for access, not an easement, and dismissed Brar Corp.'s application.

The court granted Regina Properties Ltd.'s request to vacate the notice but dismissed its request for an injunction against parking, finding the trespass claim unsuitable for an application.

The plaintiff corporations moved to restore an action to the trial list after it had been struck by a judge several years earlier.

The defendants opposed the motion, arguing that the delay in restoring the action was excessive and unexplained.

The court held that the proper framework under Rule 48.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure is guided by Rule 1.04(1), emphasizing the just and expeditious determination of cases on their merits.

The court concluded the action was ready for trial and that the limited period of delay following removal of prior counsel had been adequately explained.

The action was therefore restored to the trial list.