Stanley Fienberg

The appellant property owner appealed a summary judgment declaring that the respondent cottagers had acquired a prescriptive easement over a laneway owned by the appellant.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred by failing to apply the principle of illegality regarding a municipal by-law and by finding sufficient evidence of winter use.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no connection between the alleged by-law breach and the easement issue, and no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's treatment of the evidence of continuous year-round use.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their action against a former employee, which the motion judge had found to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The former employee had previously blown the whistle on alleged irregularities in the appellants' affairs, leading to a prior settled action and a release.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the current action was brought for an improper purpose, specifically to harass the respondent and suborn her testimony in an ongoing oppression proceeding.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.