Schwark et al. v. Cutting, (2010) 261 O.A.C. 262 (CA)

• Judge: Gillese, Blair and MacFarland, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: Friday November 20, 2009
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2010), 261 O.A.C. 262 (CA);2010 ONCA 61

Schwark v. Cutting (2010), 261 O.A.C. 262 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2010] O.A.C. TBEd. FE.001

Reinhard Schwark and Siegfried Schwark, Estate Trustees of the Estate of Louise Gertrude Schwark, Derek Clayton Bell and Jennifer Margaret Bell (plaintiffs/respondents) v. William Leonard Cutting and Brenda Jean Cutting (defendants/appellants)

(C49746; 2010 ONCA 61)

Indexed As: Schwark et al. v. Cutting

Ontario Court of Appeal

Gillese, Blair and MacFarland, JJ.A.

January 27, 2010.

Summary:

The defendants owned the lake front properties situated between the plaintiffs' lake view properties and the lake. The defendants gave the plaintiffs permission to enter upon their properties to have access to the lake. After a number of years, the defendants withdrew their permission. The plaintiffs sued, claiming prescriptive easements or easements by proprietary estoppel.

The Ontario Superior Court, in a decision reported [2008] O.T.C. Uned. R03, allowed the action. While the plaintiffs were not entitled to a prescriptive easement, they still had the right, on the basis of proprietary estoppel, to enter upon the defendants' properties. The defendants appealed. The plaintiffs did not appeal against the finding that they did not have a prescriptive easement.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and dismissed the action.

Estoppel - Topic 1324

Estoppel in pais (by conduct) - Acquiescence or encouragement - Proprietary estoppel - The defendants owned the lake front properties situated between the plaintiffs' lake view properties and the lake - The defendants gave the plaintiffs permission to enter upon their properties to have access to the lake - After a number of years, the defendants withdrew their permission - The plaintiffs sued - At issue was whether the plaintiffs were entitled, on the basis of proprietary estoppel, to enter upon the defendants' properties - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that they were not - There was no evidence of an inducement or holding out by the defendants which could have led the plaintiffs to believe that they had some right or benefit over the defendants' properties - There was no evidence of detrimental reliance on such a belief by the plaintiffs - The defendants' predecessor in title had objected in the 1970's to the plaintiffs constructing a berm on the lake front properties - There was nothing unconscionable about a property owner withdrawing his permission - See paragraphs 1 to 42.

Cases Noticed:

Crabb v. Arun District Council, [1976] 1 Ch. 183 (C.A.), consd. [para. 4].

Zelmer et al. v. Victor Projects Ltd. et al. (1997), 90 B.C.A.C. 302; 147 W.A.C. 302 (C.A.), consd. [para. 15].

Willmott v. Barber (1880), 15 Ch. D. 96 (C.A.), consd. [para. 27].

Eberts v. Carleton Condominium Corp. No. 396 et al. (2000), 136 O.A.C. 317 (C.A.), consd. [para. 34].

Counsel:

Paul Amey, for the appellant;

Bryan G. Embree, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on November 20, 2009, by Gillese, Blair and MacFarland, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The following decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered by MacFarland, J.A., and released on January 27, 2010.