Stanley Paul Fienberg

The plaintiff brought a summary judgment motion seeking a declaration of an easement over the defendants' property, claiming it was his only legal access.

The defendants opposed, arguing no right-of-way existed or had expired.

The court denied the summary judgment motion, finding that genuine issues requiring a trial existed, particularly due to conflicting expert opinions on the conveyancing history and the effect of Land Titles conversion, and unaddressed claims of easement by necessity or adverse possession.

The court emphasized the need for cross-examination of experts and a full judicial determination of the issues.

Homeowners brought a motion under s. 47 of the Construction Lien Act and Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking to discharge a construction lien and certificate of action and to dismiss the contractor’s action.

The court held that conflicting affidavit evidence regarding the amount and nature of work performed created genuine issues requiring a trial, preventing summary judgment dismissing the action.

However, the evidence demonstrated that the lien amount of $250,000 was grossly inflated relative to the limited work allegedly performed.

Exercising its discretion under the Construction Lien Act, the court ordered that the lien and certificate of action be vacated upon payment into court of a reduced amount representing a reasonable security for the claim.

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.