Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The registered easement expressly and unambiguously prohibited erecting any building or structure on the easement strip; the Pool Amenities thus contravened that prohibition and constituted an actionable encroachment; the easement was not abandoned or extinguished and proprietary estoppel did not apply; appeal dismissed.
Source excerpt
The Court held the trial judge correctly interpreted the deeds as granting express rights-of-way to the respondents to Caribou Lake, those rights-of-way, being used and enjoyed, are overriding interests under s.73(1)(e) of the Land Registration Act and therefore correction of the parcel register was appropriate without application of the s.35(6) equitable test; the appeal was dismissed.
Source excerpt
The easement granted to 19 Lawrence Street is limited to the area depicted by the fence and the parcel identified by expert survey (Parcel E); the rear lawn and area with the transformer are not part of the easement; although certain poles and guy wires encroach onto the easement, the encroachment does not constitute a substantial interference with the easement’s purpose and the plaintiff had notice/visible evidence at purchase (caveat emptor); accordingly the plaintiff’s claim is dismissed and no relief is granted.
Source excerpt
On the balance of competing paper title chains and expert survey evidence, the court found respondent Naugle established clear paper title to the woodlots comprising Block BN based on McIntosh's analysis and abstracts, and the plaintiff failed to prove acts of possession sufficient to extinguish that interest; accordingly the court will quiet title in favour of Naugle for Block BN and grant a certificate to the plaintiff for the remaining lands shown on the Parker plan (excluding Block BN).
Source excerpt
The deeds unambiguously conveyed an unrestricted 66-foot right of way over General M Drive and an 86-foot right of way over Parcel 4E; given that clear grant, the Laamanens are entitled to practical use including reasonable widening, snow removal and access to the Peninsula within the deeded boundaries, and the Clearys' six-month fencing blockade was a substantial unlawful interference; respondents' claims for nuisance/trespass and damages were dismissed as trifling or accidental.
Source excerpt
The court held that a 1940 12-foot right of way permitted vehicular and authorized tenant use, and granted declarations and an injunction against obstructions.
The Court found no right-of-way for the benefit of the Hutton Sales Lot by necessity, implied grant or prescription because alternatives existed (Oakland Road access), historical use was permissive, discontinuous or inadequately evidenced, and claimed historic rights were unreliable; the 1986 deed reservations were construed as private rights-of-way for the Homestead Lot (including agricultural/commercial uses reasonably contemplated by the grantor) but not open to the general public nor to benefit the separate Hutton Sales Lot; specific instances where the Burgoyne driveway was used to acces…
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed because the 1966 deed language was ambiguous, the trial judge permissibly considered surrounding circumstances to interpret the deed, reasonably preferred the respondents' surveyor's expert evidence, and there was no clear and material error of fact or law amounting to palpable and overriding error.
Source excerpt
The court preferred Hall's comprehensive survey and deed analysis (supported by on‑the‑ground monuments such as stone walls and fences and Crown grant mapping) over Ashley's retracement; on that basis the Province and the Mannettes have the superior paper chain of title and the Murphys have established adverse possessory title, therefore Dawn failed to prove entitlement to the disputed land and has no registered or possessory interest in the identified PIDs.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal partly allowed an appeal about striking pleadings, holding one defence was barred by estoppel or abuse of process, but another should stand.
Explore more
