Tysick

The applicants sought a declaration that they had a right-of-way over the respondent's property to access their summer cottage, relying on a 1937 agreement, proprietary estoppel, or the Road Access Act.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the 1937 agreement did not create a valid easement due to a lack of certainty regarding its location.

The court also rejected the proprietary estoppel claim as the respondent made no representations guaranteeing access.

Finally, the court held that the disputed trail was not an 'access road' under the Road Access Act because it was an overgrown bush trail unsuitable for motor vehicles.

The respondent's counterapplication to remove a caution from title was granted.

The plaintiffs brought an action for damages alleging that the defendants' replacement of a culvert under a local road caused flooding and erosion on their property.

The defendants brought a Rule 21 motion to strike the claim, arguing it was barred by the statutory immunity provision in s. 18 of the Local Roads Board Act.

The court found that the replacement of a culvert constitutes maintenance of a local road, and therefore the plaintiffs' claim was barred by statutory immunity.

The motion to strike was granted without leave to amend.

The defendant college brought a Rule 21 motion to strike the self-represented plaintiffs' statement of claim, which sought damages arising from the denial of religious exemptions to a COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

The defendant argued the claim was statute-barred, disclosed no reasonable cause of action, and was frivolous and vexatious.

The court dismissed the motion to strike the entire claim, finding that the limitation period issue required fact-finding on discoverability that was inappropriate for a Rule 21 motion, and that the claim contained a germ of a cause of action.

The court granted leave to amend the statement of claim and struck one paragraph as scandalous and vexatious.