William W. N. Fawcett

This is a costs decision following an application for property rights over portions of the respondents' property.

The applicants sought either ownership by adverse possession or a prescriptive easement over a driveway area and a gravel parking and lawn area.

The applicants were substantially successful, obtaining an easement of vehicular ingress and egress over the driveway area and an order requiring the respondents to remove obstructing items.

However, the applicants' claim for adverse possession of the parking and lawn area was dismissed.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the applicants in the amount of $36,000.00, all inclusive, finding that while the respondents' conduct was un-neighbourly and antagonistic, it did not rise to the level of reprehensible, scandalous or outrageous behaviour warranting substantial indemnity costs.

This decision addresses whether software developed by an employee (Vladimir Krougly) while employed at Nexus Solutions Inc. was created in the course of employment, such that Nexus would own the copyright in the software (Limedas) later commercialized by Limesoft Inc. The court finds that although Krougly was the author of the software, it was not created in the course of his employment with Nexus, and thus Nexus is not entitled to a proprietary remedy under copyright law.

The court reviews the factual background, credibility of witnesses, expert evidence, and the legal framework for copyright ownership in the employment context.

The appellant sought to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing his appeal for delay and to extend the time to perfect his appeal.

The original action had been dismissed by summary judgment due to the expiry of a limitation period.

The Court of Appeal, applying the four-factor test for extending time, found the appellant's delay lengthy and inadequately explained, and critically, determined that the proposed appeal lacked merit.

The motion judge's finding on the limitation period was deemed a finding of mixed fact and law, reviewable only for palpable and overriding error, which was not present.

Consequently, the motion was denied.