3 total
The court granted a prescriptive easement for driveway access after finding the respondent's denial of the driveway's existence lacked credibility.
The applicant sought a declaration of a prescriptive easement over the respondent's property for access to a rear parking lot, which was necessary for the rezoning of her mixed-use building to fully residential.
The respondent denied the existence of the driveway and the easement.
The court found that the applicant successfully established the requirements for a prescriptive easement under section 31 of the Real Property Limitations Act, including continuous, open, peaceful, and non-permissive use for the requisite twenty-year period prior to the property's conversion to Land Titles in 1999.
The court explicitly disbelieved the respondent's evidence regarding the driveway's existence.
The application was granted, and the Land Registrar was directed to amend property records to reflect the easement.
Volunteer representative could not be compelled to complete discovery attendance.
The appellant appealed an order requiring him to re-attend and complete an examination for discovery as Pontiac's representative.
The court held that Rule 31.03(2) did not apply because the appellant was not an officer, director or employee of Pontiac.
His prior voluntary attendance did not amount to a waiver of his right not to attend.
The appeal was allowed, the motion order was set aside, and the motion was dismissed with costs.
Union merger found constitutional, but further hearing ordered on statutory effects of province-wide bargaining.
The applicant union local sought a declaration under section 62 of the Labour Relations Act that the respondent union local was not its successor following a merger ordered by the international union president.
The Board found that the employer intervener had status to participate but could not lead evidence on the business consequences of the merger.
The Board determined that the merger was conducted in accordance with the union's constitution, which did not require a membership vote.
However, the Board raised concerns about the effect of section 137(2) of the Act and the provincial agreement on the application, and referred the matter for a further hearing on that issue.
