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.