Majewsky v. Veveris

Majewsky v. Veveris

The Court of Appeal set aside the trial judge's finding that the respondent was entitled to a prescriptive easement over the cedar trail because that finding could not stand on the evidence, but upheld the respondent's adverse possession of the house lands and prescriptive easement over part of the laneway; given...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2018 ONCA 938
Parties
Plaintiff (respondent): Peter Majewsky; Defendant (appellant): Juris Veveris; Defendant (appellant): Christina Miller-Veveris; Defendant (appellant): Stewart Title Guaranty Company
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision on Liability and Costs (costs Endorsement)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part: trial judge's finding of a prescriptive easement over the cedar trail set aside and that part of the respondent's action dismissed; the remainder of the trial judge's findings (adverse possession of the house lands and prescriptive easement over part of the laneway) were...
Legal Topics
Prescriptive Easement, Adverse Possession, Offer to Settle, Costs of Appeal, Possession
Source Language
english
Property Law Civil Procedure Costs Law Equity Prescriptive Easement Adverse Possession Offer to Settle Costs of Appeal +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Majewsky

Plaintiff (respondent)

Juris Veveris

Defendant (appellant)

Christina Miller-Veveris

Defendant (appellant)

Stewart Title Guaranty Company

Defendant (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision on Liability and Costs (costs Endorsement)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent acquired a prescriptive easement over the cedar trail
  2. 2 Whether respondent acquired possessory title (adverse possession) to the house lands
  3. 3 Whether respondent acquired a prescriptive easement over a portion of the laneway

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal set aside the trial judge's finding that the respondent was entitled to a prescriptive easement over the cedar trail because that finding could not stand on the evidence, but upheld the respondent's adverse possession of the house lands and prescriptive easement over part of the laneway; given the overall result the respondent still bettered the settlement offer so the court varied the trial judge's costs award downward to $32,000 while awarding $10,000 for the appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part: trial judge's finding of a prescriptive easement over the cedar trail set aside and that part of the respondent's action dismissed; the remainder of the trial judge's findings (adverse possession of the house lands and prescriptive easement over part of the laneway) were...

Orders

  • Set aside trial judge's finding that the respondent was entitled to a prescriptive easement over the cedar trail and dismiss that part of the action.
  • Dismiss the balance of the appellants' appeal (i.e. uphold findings that respondent acquired possessory title to the house lands and a prescriptive easement over part of the laneway).