The plaintiffs sought declarations that a 40‑foot road allowance adjacent to their property constituted a public highway and alternatively claimed ownership of portions of neighbouring land through adverse possession or similar equitable remedies.
The Township and the neighbouring landowner brought motions for summary judgment, while the plaintiffs brought a cross‑motion to amend their statement of claim.
The court granted leave to amend under Rule 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding the proposed amendments legally tenable and not causing irremediable prejudice.
Summary judgment was granted to the Township because the evidence established the road allowance was a private roadway never dedicated to or accepted by the municipality as a public highway.
However, summary judgment was refused with respect to the neighbouring landowner because significant factual disputes, including inconsistent permission agreements and issues surrounding encroachments and use rights, required a full trial.
