Michael Robertson

The applicant property owner sought an order prohibiting the respondent neighbours from parking on a shared right-of-way.

The respondents argued they had acquired a prescriptive right to park there and cross-applied to restrict the applicant from using the right-of-way to launch marine vehicles.

The court dismissed the application, finding the respondents had established an absolute and indefeasible right to park on the right-of-way through over 40 years of continuous use.

Furthermore, the court held the applicant's easement rights were limited to foot access to the beach and enjoined the applicant from operating motorized vehicles or building ramps on the unpaved portion of the right-of-way.

The appellants appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice dated February 21, 2017.

The appellants failed to appear at the hearing of the appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as abandoned and ordered that moneys held in trust be released to the respondent.

Costs were fixed at $6,500.00 all inclusive.

The plaintiff brought an action for damages against his former partner, several police officers, and the police services board for negligent investigation, malicious prosecution, false arrest, and Charter breaches arising from two arrests related to a property dispute.

The court found that two officers lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the plaintiff for break and enter and breach of recognizance, respectively, and failed to conduct adequate investigations.

The court held the two officers and the police services board liable for negligent investigation and false arrest, awarding $40,192 in damages.

The claims for malicious prosecution and the claims against the former partner and other officers were dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Master's order dismissing her motion to substitute a named individual for a 'John Doe' defendant on the basis of misnomer, or alternatively to add the individual after the expiry of the limitation period.

The appellant had the vehicle's license plate number since the motor vehicle accident but did not identify the owner until after the limitation period expired.

The Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the Master's conclusion that this was not a classic misnomer and that the appellant failed to exercise due diligence to discover the defendant's identity.

The appeal was dismissed.