Shivan Micoo

Following a twelve-day trial regarding a property boundary and adverse possession dispute, both parties sought costs.

The plaintiffs claimed partial indemnity costs of $150,563.98, while the defendants claimed partial indemnity costs of $248,861.38 and relied on a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The court found that success was equally divided, as the plaintiffs succeeded on the boundary terminus issue and the defendants succeeded on the adverse possession claim.

Consequently, the court ordered that each side bear their own costs.

The parties appeared before the court to request clarification of paragraph 112 in the first Addendum to Judgment.

The defendants proposed an additional sentence to avoid ambiguity regarding the common boundary between the properties.

The plaintiffs took no position, provided the original meaning remained unchanged.

The court agreed to amend the paragraph to clarify that the common boundary terminating at the water's edge is an ambulatory boundary that moves with the water level.

The parties appeared for further submissions to determine the terminus of the common boundary between their waterfront properties, following a previous judgment.

The court amended the judgment to clarify that the common boundary terminates at the water's edge of Balsam Lake.

On consent, the court also amended the judgment to restrict both parties from launching from or occupying land or water on specific sides of the respondent's dock to prevent impairment of each other's riparian rights.

The applicant sought an order to relocate an existing access easement over its property, which was owned by the respondent, to enable a larger commercial development.

The respondent opposed the relocation.

The court examined the statutory provisions for modifying or discharging conditions or covenants annexed to land under the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act and the Land Titles Act.

It emphasized the narrow judicial discretion to intervene, particularly when the servient owner demonstrates any prejudice.

The court found that the proposed relocation would cause potential prejudice to the respondent due to increased traffic congestion from parking on both sides of the easement and potential adverse impacts on its mortgage financing.

Consequently, the application to relocate the easement was dismissed.