R. D. Gordon

The applicant brought a motion arising from an assessment of costs, seeking to invalidate a contingency fee agreement (CFA) because it lacked a mandatory statement regarding his right to make critical decisions.

The respondent law firm brought a cross-motion to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant.

The court found the CFA was fair and reasonable because the applicant's conduct demonstrated he was fully aware of his right to control the litigation.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion, holding it lacked jurisdiction to declare a vexatious litigant on a motion rather than an application.

Both motions were dismissed with no order as to costs, and the matter was remitted to the assessment officer.

Neighbouring property owners disputed ownership and use of three narrow strips of land including a shared driveway, a storage area, and a backyard strip.

The plaintiffs claimed adverse possession and alternatively an easement under the doctrine of lost modern grant.

The court held that adverse possession failed for the driveway and storage area because the plaintiffs’ use was not inconsistent with the true owner’s use and their claimed mistaken belief of ownership was not credible.

However, adverse possession succeeded for a backyard strip where a fence had been erected under a mutual mistake as to the boundary.

The court also recognized a prescriptive easement over the driveway under the doctrine of lost modern grant, permitting parking and related maintenance rights.

The applicant father and respondent mother separated after a turbulent marriage and sought a determination of custody and access for their three young daughters.

The father sought joint or shared custody on an alternating weekly basis, while the mother sought sole custody with access reflecting the status quo.

The court found that both parents loved the children but were unable to communicate effectively or shield the children from their conflict.

Relying on the mother's role as the historical primary caregiver and the stability she provided, the court awarded sole custody to the mother.

However, to protect the father's relationship with the children, the court expanded his access to include a mid-week overnight and required his written consent for major decisions regarding relocation, education, and religion.

The court also granted a divorce and ordered the father to pay child support.