S. Lederman

The appellants and respondents are adjoining neighbours involved in a dispute over a parking easement on the respondents' property.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment order that limited their parking to a single vehicle and required them to park so as not to restrict the respondents' backyard access.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge correctly interpreted the original grant of easement and the surrounding circumstances, which indicated an intention to create a right to park only one vehicle.

The respondents' cross-appeal on costs was also dismissed.

The father appealed from urgent temporary orders granting the mother temporary custody, support, and preservation of assets, arguing the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's application of the real and substantial connection test for the Family Law Act claims and the statutory criteria under section 22 of the Children's Law Reform Act for the custody claims.

The court affirmed that jurisdiction can be assumed on a prima facie basis for urgent temporary orders while adjourning the final determination of forum conveniens.