4 total
Decision on motion to set aside and admit fresh evidence reserved; stay of board decision continued.
The applicants brought a motion to set aside a previous decision and to admit fresh evidence.
The Divisional Court reserved its decision on the motion.
However, the court ordered that the stay of the Animal Care Review Board's decision be continued pending the release of the court's decision on the motion.
The parties were also directed to advise the court of any resolution reached at an upcoming board hearing.
Adverse possession claim fails where maintenance of disputed strip did not exclude true owner.
Neighbouring landowners disputed ownership of a narrow strip of land along their shared boundary.
The plaintiffs sought a declaration of title based on adverse possession prior to the properties entering the land titles system in 1995 and claimed damages for trespass and removal of trees.
The court reviewed the requirements for adverse possession under the Real Property Limitations Act, including actual possession, intention to exclude the true owner, and effective exclusion for the statutory period.
The evidence showed the plaintiffs’ activities—primarily mowing grass and maintaining the area—were not inconsistent with the defendants’ use of the land as a buffer between properties and did not establish exclusive possession or an intention to exclude.
The court also rejected arguments of mutual mistake regarding the boundary line.
The plaintiffs failed to prove the elements required for possessory title.
Leave to appeal granted to resolve conflicting case law on the test for venue transfers.
The defendant franchisor sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order dismissing its motion to transfer the action from Hamilton to Kitchener.
The defendant argued that leave should be granted under Rule 62.02(4)(a) due to conflicting decisions regarding the proper test for venue transfers under Rule 13.1.02(2)(b).
The court found that there were indeed conflicting lines of cases in Ontario—specifically the 'Siemens' threshold approach versus the 'Hallman' holistic approach—and granted leave to appeal to the Divisional Court to resolve the inconsistency.
Leave to appeal granted due to conflicting case law on the test for venue transfer motions.
The defendant franchisor sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order dismissing its motion to transfer the venue of a franchise dispute from Hamilton to Kitchener.
The moving party argued that leave should be granted under Rule 62.02(4)(a) because there are conflicting decisions in Ontario regarding whether a plaintiff's choice of venue must have a rational connection to the action before the court engages in a holistic balancing of factors under Rule 13.1.02(2)(b).
The court agreed that two conflicting lines of cases exist (the Siemens threshold approach versus the Hallman holistic approach) and granted leave to appeal to the Divisional Court to provide appellate guidance on the issue.
