Timothy J. Girard

The Applicant sought costs after successfully obtaining an order to close an access road on her property, subject to a temporary suspension for the Respondent's use.

The Respondent opposed the costs request, arguing that the Applicant was aware of the access road's long-standing use when she purchased the property and that he had made settlement offers.

The court considered the parties' efforts to settle, the importance and complexity of the issues (easements), and the reasonableness of the Applicant's counsel's fees.

The court awarded the Applicant costs of $7,500 on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant sought an order under the Road Access Act to close an access road on her property used by the respondent to access his adjacent property.

The respondent opposed, claiming a legal right to use the road via a prescriptive easement, doctrine of lost modern grant, or easement by necessity.

The court found the respondent's historical use was permissive and that he had alternate access via an unbuilt road allowance.

The court granted the applicant's request to close the road but suspended the enforcement of the order until December 31, 2020, to allow the respondent time to construct a new driveway.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims, arguing the action was statute-barred by the expiry of the limitation period.

The plaintiffs purchased a renovated house in 2008, experienced a minor basement leak in 2009, and discovered significant structural damage and a larger leak in 2011.

The action was commenced approximately two years after the 2011 discovery.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding that the plaintiffs were entitled to rely on the vendors' representations and that the concealment of deficiencies and misrepresentations displaced the "buyer beware" principle.

The court also determined it was unreasonable to expect the plaintiffs to conduct extensive investigations after the initial minor leak.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his claim for damages arising from alleged defective paving work on his driveway.

He argued that the respondent failed to properly prepare the sub-base and should have installed a geotextile membrane due to the presence of clay, leading to cracking and alleged sinking of the driveway.

The appellate court held that the trial judge reasonably found the appellant failed to prove the presence of clay, subsidence, or substandard workmanship.

The court also held that evidentiary rulings and minor factual misstatements by the trial judge did not constitute reviewable error affecting the outcome.

Applying appellate deference to factual findings, the court dismissed the appeal.