Skip to content

Narrow screen resolution Wide screen resolution Auto adjust screen size Increase font size Decrease font size Default font size default color brick color green color
CAFCOR Forum
_GEN_GOTOBOTTOM Post Reply
TOPIC:
#18979
Muskoka RIVERFRONT COTTAGE ROAD WAR revives past struggle against UNLAWFUL SHUTDOWN 2019/07/05 23:15  
A Muskoka resort owner's campaign of road shutdowns & alleged obstructions against offsite cottagers, appears to have reached the civil justice system once again.

In 2005 Ontario's Court of Appeal had punished the resort owner's attempts to pre-empt a different cottager Mrs Ramsay's easement rights under the Registry Act. This judgment ( cited below plus its policy & legislative aftermath ) led to a major re-examination of what it took to revitalize expiry-prone rights of ways under the Province of Ontario's Registry Act.

( Most of these environments are believed to be now converted into "qualified" land titles scenarios also subject to expiry unless renewed. But some get a "special deal" ( see below ). These are major building blocks of covenant-linked non-condo communities, but also have application to commercial property issues. )

But ole' habits on this Muskoka road may apparently die very hard . . .

A different group of five cottage owners has had to return.

They here obtain an injunction to halt a campaign of disturbing shutdowns & alleged obstructions attempting to undermine the sole land-based access for those cottages.

One such had been registration of a bizarre self-deed to purport to strip the easementers of the year-round travel rights here confirmed. ( Self-deeds can be notorious "bad faith" tools to undermine covenant rights. One such is torpedoed here )

Media records provide a shocking series of other background events.

The judgment withholds contempt of court measures sought for the extended series of obstructions.

Walker v. Coldin, 2019 ONSC 3255 issued May 28/19 http://canlii.ca/t/j0l83

Walker v. Coldin, 2019 ONSC 4089 issued July 3/19 http://canlii.ca/t/j1886

* *

An ONCA biggy from 2005 : 1387881 Ontario Inc. v. Ramsay, 2005 CanLII 23211 (ON CA) issued June 30 2005 http://canlii.ca/t/1l3dh

( this ain't legal advice : like it or not Ontario's civil courts at 2019 are loath to strike down long expired easements STILL "OPENLY ENJOYED AND ( CONTINUOUSLY ) USED" where a least SOME of the passage claimers are otherwise landlocked. Even where parcels have been converted to qualified Land Titles, the "easement protector" judges variously hang their hat on Registry Act Section 113(5) setting out certain exceptions to the ( otherwise merciless ) application of the Ontario Registry Act's Part III.

" Section 113(5) A (4) reads as follows: (5) This Part does not apply to, (a) a claim,
. . . . (iv) of a person to an unregistered right of way, easement or other right that the person is openly enjoying and using;. . ."

Judges may also complain "Otherwise it ain't fair" !

One can see later "Ramsay-type" OUTCOMES ( with rationales arguably still evolving ) at :

Hoggarth v Mgm Farms and Fingers Limited, 2015 ONSC 2494 http://canlii.ca/t/gh8j9

Gold v. Chronas, 2014 ONSC 6763 http://canlii.ca/t/gfdb8 upheld by ONCA in Gold v. Chronas, 2015 ONCA 900 http://canlii.ca/t/gmm6f )
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
_GEN_GOTOTOP Post Reply
contact webmaster