Sophie C. Reitano

The applicants, owners of adjacent waterfront cottages, sought a declaration of communal adverse possession over a parcel of land separating their properties from the Ottawa River.

The disputed land had been purchased by the respondents following a municipal tax sale.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, holding that Ontario law does not recognize a communal claim for adverse possession where the claimants only used discrete portions of the land rather than possessing the whole in common.

The court also rejected the applicants' challenge to the respondents' legal title, finding the paralegal's affidavit on title issues inadmissible as expert opinion.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal concerning a dispute among investors in a residential subdivision.

The appeal, brought by 1750714 Ontario Inc. et al., was dismissed.

The court determined the quantum of costs payable by the appellants to the respondent, 1750738 Ontario Inc., on a partial indemnity basis, considering factors such as complexity, importance of issues, and party conduct.

The court awarded a global amount of $32,000 to the respondent.

The applicant, 1750738 Ontario Inc., sought specific performance of a verbal contract against the respondent corporations.

The verbal contract stipulated that Hervé Lacroix would invest in a real estate development project (Oasis) on the condition that his son's company, Maisons Lacroix Homes Inc., would construct 25% of the lots.

The respondents later terminated this arrangement.

The court found that the verbal contract existed, was ratified by 1750739 Ontario Inc. despite preceding its incorporation, was sufficiently certain, and was not precluded by the Statute of Frauds due to part performance.

Furthermore, a "whole agreement" clause in a subsequent shareholders' agreement did not terminate the verbal contract, given the circumstances of its signing and the lack of independent legal advice for Lacroix.

The court also found no convincing evidence of serious misconduct by Maisons Lacroix Homes Inc. that would justify termination.

The court granted specific performance, annulling the termination decision and ordering the allocation of 25% of lots to Maisons Lacroix Homes Inc.

The defendants, a church and its lead pastor, sought leave to appeal an order dismissing their motion to strike the plaintiffs' claim against the pastor in his personal capacity.

The plaintiffs had sued the defendants for negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and negligence regarding an unregistered educational program run by the church.

The court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision because the statement of claim did not specifically plead a separate claim against the pastor in his personal capacity, contrary to established case law.

The moving party sought an order under Rule 48.14(16) of the Rules of Civil Procedure setting aside a registrar’s order dismissing his action for delay.

The underlying action between brothers sought recovery of more than $400,000 allegedly arising from loans dating back to the 1990s.

The court reviewed the contextual factors governing motions to set aside dismissal for delay, including explanation for delay, inadvertence, promptness in bringing the motion, and prejudice to the responding party.

The court found lengthy unexplained inactivity, insufficient evidence of inadvertence, lack of prompt action after learning of the dismissal, and a failure to rebut presumed prejudice arising from limitation issues and evidentiary concerns.

In the circumstances, it was not just to permit the action to proceed.

The defendant brought a motion seeking a declaration that the plaintiff had waived solicitor-client privilege with his former lawyers after filing affidavit evidence blaming them for delay in prosecuting the action.

The affidavit asserted reliance on legal advice, instructions to counsel to advance the action, and lack of knowledge of a court-ordered timetable requiring the matter to be set down for trial.

The court held that by raising communications with counsel and his state of mind to explain delay in a motion to set aside a dismissal under Rule 48.14, the plaintiff placed those communications directly in issue.

Applying principles of fairness and implied waiver, the court concluded that privilege had been waived in relation to specified communications and instructions concerning advancement of the action.

The former solicitors were ordered to re-attend for examination under Rule 39.03 to answer questions relating to those issues.

The moving party brought a motion seeking disclosure and examination of the responding party’s former lawyers on the basis that the responding party had waived solicitor-client privilege through statements contained in an affidavit.

The court held that the affidavit placed the legal advice and conduct of former counsel in issue, thereby constituting a waiver of solicitor-client privilege and professional secrecy concerning communications and instructions relating to the progress of the action.

The court ordered that the former lawyers attend for further examination under Rule 39.03 to answer questions within the scope of the waiver.

The motion was granted and directions were provided regarding the scope of permissible questioning.