Sandra L. Monger

The appellant appealed an order granting the respondents an easement over his property.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the respondents' predecessors in title had enjoyed open, continuous, and undisturbed use of the right of way from 1982 until 2006.

The Court rejected the appellant's argument that his consent defeated the prescriptive right, noting the consent was for a permanent easement.

The appeal was dismissed, and the respondents were awarded costs.

The appellant mistakenly sent a wire transfer to the respondent's bank account.

The respondent, believing the funds were repayment of a loan from a third-party fraudster, subsequently advanced another loan to that third party.

The appellant sued for unjust enrichment based on mistake of fact.

The trial judge found the respondent had a valid defence of change of position.

On appeal, the appellant argued the unusual circumstances of the transfer triggered a duty of inquiry.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no duty to inquire arose because a similar transaction had occurred a week prior and the third party had provided a plausible explanation.