Michael Robert Macnamara

The plaintiff, John Shane, sought damages from Ontario Aboriginal Housing Support Services Corporation (OAHS) for property damage caused by a fire in a rental unit leased to OAHS clients.

Shane claimed OAHS had orally agreed to cover all property damage caused by its clients, or, in the alternative, that OAHS was negligent in supporting the tenants.

The court found no oral contract existed, as there was no meeting of the minds or clear promise by OAHS to cover all damages.

The court also found no evidence of negligence by OAHS.

The claim was dismissed.

The applicants were previously successful in obtaining an order for the sale of a jointly owned property.

In this costs decision, the court declined to award costs to the successful applicants.

The court found that the case involved an unusual set of facts—unrelated property owners with separate dwellings on jointly owned land—and that both parties, particularly the applicants, missed opportunities to resolve the matter short of litigation.

Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.

The applicants and respondent owned a lakefront property as tenants in common, with the applicants using their dwelling recreationally and the respondent using hers as a principal residence.

The applicants sought to sell their interest but alleged the respondent interfered with prospective purchasers.

The applicants brought an application under the Partition Act for the sale of the entire property.

The court found no malicious or vexatious intent by the applicants and concluded that the respondent would not suffer objective hardship amounting to oppression if the property were sold.

The application for the sale of the property was granted, with a reference directed for the conduct of the sale.

The plaintiff sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendants from blocking access to her driveway via a gravel roadway on the defendants' property.

The defendants argued the Road Access Act did not apply because an undeveloped right of way provided alternate access.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found a serious issue to be tried regarding the application of the Road Access Act, irreparable harm to the 75-year-old plaintiff due to lack of emergency and service vehicle access, and that the balance of convenience favoured granting limited interim access.

The court ordered the defendants to remove obstructions and permitted the plaintiff restricted use of the roadway until January 2023 to allow for the construction of a new driveway on the right of way.