Timothy R. Pedwell

The applicant sought a declaration and injunction to remove fences obstructing an express mutual right-of-way on adjacent properties.

The respondents claimed abandonment of the right-of-way and possessory rights for a board fence erected prior to Land Titles conversion, and conceded the removal of a chain link fence erected after conversion.

The court found no evidence of abandonment of the right-of-way prior to Land Titles conversion and ordered the removal of all obstructing fences, issuing a permanent injunction against interference.

Following a successful application regarding the interpretation of a cohabitation agreement, the applicant sought costs.

The applicant had made a time-limited settlement offer that was more advantageous than the final decision, though it did not attract automatic cost consequences under Rule 49.

Considering the factors in Rule 57.01 and the parties' bills of costs, the court awarded the applicant costs on a partial indemnity basis fixed at $21,000.

The applicant and respondent entered into a cohabitation agreement wherein the applicant invested $181,000 into the respondent's property.

Following the breakdown of their relationship, the property was sold at a shortfall.

The applicant sought her entitlement off the top of the proceeds, while the respondent claimed reimbursement for household expenses and funds taken from a joint account.

The court held that the applicant was entitled to her funds off the top as per the agreement.

The respondent's claims for older expenses and the joint account were largely barred by the Limitations Act, 2002, resulting in a minor set-off for recent household expenses.

The plaintiffs and defendants, who are family members, entered into a business venture to purchase and manage an apartment building through a corporation.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant managing the building breached his fiduciary duties by misappropriating corporate funds for personal use and to purchase other properties.

After a 40-day trial involving extensive forensic accounting evidence, the court found the defendant's evidence lacked credibility and determined he had misappropriated $592,671.43.

The court imposed a constructive trust on the properties purchased with the misappropriated funds and ordered the defendant removed as an officer, director, and shareholder of the corporation.