Citation: 2026 ONSC 3958 Court File No. CV-25-00000008-0000
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
VALERIE CANNONS and THOMAS GIBSON
Applicants
v.
CAROL BURNS and DOUGLAS CALLOW
Respondents
R E A S O N S F O R D E C I S I O N O N M O T I O N
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. ROGER,
on Monday, June 29th, 2026, at Belleville, Ontario
APPEARANCES:
William Procter Counsel for the Applicants, Valerie Cannons and Thomas Gibson
Andrea Habas Counsel for Carol Burns
MONDAY, JUNE 29TH, 2026
R E A S O N S F O R D E C I S I O N
5 ROGER, J. (Orally):
Three siblings are experiencing difficulties dealing with a property they equally own and which has been in their family for years, the family farm. The family farm is made up of 150 acres in
10 Prince Edward County fronting on a small lake with a farmhouse, a tenant’s house, and a barn. The three siblings were able to use the family farm under an arrangement that worked for many years. Over the years, distrust grew between Ms. Burns and
15 her siblings for a variety of reasons, until events in September 2024 led to this application.
In November 2025, the parties agreed to an order for the sale of the family farm. The family farm
20 is now listed for sale and the evidence is that it
could take two to three years for the family farm to sell. Realizing that the family farm could sit empty all this time, the respondent seeks to use it as she previously did. The applicants object,
25 arguing that the respondent has been deceptive such that litigation could result, that the respondent could damage the property, that the applicant Mr. Gibson is paying expenses under the terms of the order and that this could result in increased
30 expenses until the property is sold, and that two
out of the three owners prefer that the property remains unused by all until it sells.
The law is not disputed and an old decision was cited to the Court. Basically, tenants in common have equal rights to reasonably enter and use the property in a manner that does not impair or interfere with the rights of their co-owners.
While it was wrong for Ms. Burns to act as she did in September 2024, the evidence does not establish that she is otherwise unreasonable or that she will not obey court orders. Removing a few of her cooking items from the farmhouse is not sufficient. On the other hand, changing the locks and refusing to give Ms. Burns a key to the farmhouse cannot be said to be evidence of reasonableness on the part of Mr. Gibson.
There is no evidence that the limited use of the family farm sought by Ms. Burns could interfere with the sale of the family farm. Most of the applicants’ arguments are speculative and contradicted by the evidence that Ms. Burns did not previously damage the property. Each sibling is equally an owner of the family farm with his or her siblings and there is no sufficient reason why only one should have the keys to the family farm or why all of them should be prohibited from using the family farm as they did in the past for many years until it sells, which could be as long as two to three years. There is no evidence that using the family farm as the siblings did in the past could interfere with its sale. Most of what is argued is
speculation about possible difficulties and possible issues but those risks are not sufficient, on the evidence, to prohibit all of the siblings, who are each co-owners of this property, from using the family farm reasonably while it is up for sale, in a manner which does not interfere with its sale. Rather, as co-owners, they each have the right to use the family farm in a manner that is reasonable and in a manner that does not interfere with the equal rights of their co-owners.
Consequentially, the motion is granted and the following is ordered:
The applicant Thomas Norris Alton Gibson shall immediately provide to his co-owners, the applicant Valerie Marie Kathleen Cannons and the respondent Carol Elsie Burns, a working copy of all keys required for the locks at the family farm.
Each of the three co-owners of the family farm may attend, occupy, and have possession of the family farm as per the following schedule:
(a) The respondent, Ms. Burns, for two weeks during the summer from 5:00 p.m. on July 16 to 5:00 p.m. on July 31, for Thanksgiving, from 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday before Thanksgiving this year, October 8, 2026 to 5:00 p.m. on the Monday following Thanksgiving this year on October 12, 2026, for Christmases from 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday,
December 23, 2026 to 5:00 p.m. on Monday,
December 28, 2026, and for Easter from 5:00
p.m. on Thursday, April 16, 2027 to 5:00
p.m. on Monday, April 20, 2027, repeating yearly as applicable until the family farm is sold as provided below.
(b) The applicant, Ms. Cannons, for two weeks during the summer from 5:00 p.m. on July 1 to 5:00 p.m. on July 15, starting this year, and for two weeks in May from 5:00 p.m. on May 16 to 5:00 p.m. on May 31, repeating yearly as applicable until the family farm is sold as provided below.
(c) The applicant, Mr. Gibson, for the month of August of each year until the family farm is sold as provided below.
Except for the above, none of the parties may attend, occupy, or have possession of the family farm and property at any other time, except for the applicant Mr. Gibson and his agents who may attend at the family farm as required for its upkeep and maintenance.
The schedule outlined above at paragraph two terminates for all parties upon their acceptance of a non-conditional offer of purchase and sale of the family farm or upon all conditions of an offer of purchase and sale of the family farm being waived.
The three owners shall immediately provide to the
listing agent their email address and phone number to allow for the agent to communicate with them, including to advise them of any showing.
The three owners shall advise the listing agent of when they come into and out of possession as per the schedule provided at paragraph two. If someone else than them is attending, they shall provide to the listing agent the email and phone number of the person in possession, to allow the listing agent to contact the person in possession in the event of a scheduled showing. This is not applicable to the applicant Mr. Gibson and his agents for the required upkeep and maintenance of the family farm.
Should a showing or showings occur during a period of possession by any of the co-owners or their invitees, the party then in possession and all of their invitees shall vacate the family farm and property prior to and for the time- period that the family farm and property is shown to prospective purchasers, leaving the family farm in a clean and room swept condition before any showing.
The family farm shall always be left in a clean and room swept condition by any of the three owners and their invitees.
Each party shall be responsible for any damage that occur at or to the family farm and property during his or her period of occupancy.
Costs of this motion are fixed in the all inclusive amount of $7,000, payable by the applicants to the respondents.
On the topic of costs, the parties’ costs are fairly comparable, both showing full indemnity costs in the range of about $12,000. The respondents were entirely successful on this motion. They should be entitled to their partial indemnity costs.
This case is not unique and the law on the topic of this motion is rather clear. The motion should not have been required and I disagree that no costs should be ordered. Costs serve a useful purpose, and this case is an example. I considered ordering costs payable from the applicants’ share of the sale proceeds, however, the expected period for this property to sell of two to three years is too long for the respondents to wait to be reimbursed for their costs.
REASONS FOR DECISION CONCLUDED