Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• • Central dispute over the precise boundary line and ownership of a narrow strip of land between neighbouring residential properties, including competing survey evidence and forum choice (Superior Court vs Ontario Land Tribunal/Boundaries Act).
• • Plaintiffs advanced extensive pecuniary, non-pecuniary and punitive damages claims but presented little supporting evidence, leaving the case effectively centred on boundary location and title clarification.
• • Defendants’ counterclaim and adverse possession claim over the disputed strip lacked a realistic evidentiary foundation and were dismissed.
• • Litigation conduct on both sides was disproportionate, producing a 12-day trial and heavy cost claims over land of nominal value, compounded by confrontational post-trial correspondence.
• • Procedural and evidentiary missteps by the plaintiffs, including failure to properly address a Request to Admit and inadequate preparation for expert cross-examination, contributed to delay and inefficiency.
• • Costs outcome reflected shared responsibility: no counsel fees awarded to the plaintiffs, but an order that the defendants jointly and severally pay $25,000 in disbursements plus HST, as the necessary out-of-pocket expenses tied to expert and related evidence.

Background and facts

The dispute in Miner-Tremblay et al. v. Rintoul arose from a modest strip of land situated between two neighbouring residential properties in Ontario. The plaintiffs, Diana Lynne Ester Miner-Tremblay and Debra Jean Hazel Bowes, owned one property, while the defendants, Kevin Donald James Rintoul (also known as Kevin James Donald Rintoul) and Karen Frances Rintoul, owned the adjacent property. The contested area was a narrow sliver of land along the common boundary, but it triggered an intense and protracted legal conflict. Although no formal valuation of the strip was made at trial, the court later described its monetary value as nominal when compared with the legal costs ultimately incurred.

The core of the dispute was the precise location of the lot line and the associated ownership of the narrow strip. The plaintiffs contended that the defendants’ use and fencing encroached onto their property and clouded their title. The defendants, in response, challenged the plaintiffs’ understanding of the boundary, raised issues of alleged survey error, and claimed they had acquired rights over the disputed strip. They advanced a counterclaim and relied on a theory of adverse possession, asserting long-term occupation and use.

What might have remained a contained neighbour dispute escalated into full-scale litigation in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The plaintiffs initiated the action there, justifying their choice on the basis that Small Claims Court lacked jurisdiction to determine boundary issues and that they were also seeking monetary damages. Over time, however, the case came to centre almost entirely on the location of the boundary and the cloud on title, with the court later characterizing the damages component as secondary or ancillary.

The defendants maintained that the matter belonged in a more specialized forum: the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) or under the Boundaries Act, both of which are structured to handle property boundary and title disputes. Proceedings in those fora typically ensure notice to all affected landowners and follow a more streamlined, cost-effective process, with each party often bearing its own costs. The Superior Court judge ultimately agreed that this case should have been brought before the OLT, noting that the choice of forum was a significant factor in the disproportionate expenditure of time and money relative to the limited substantive issue.

The trial and evidentiary issues

The trial lasted 12 days, consuming considerable judicial resources and delaying other serious matters, including family and criminal cases, that were awaiting court time. The judge described the conduct of the litigation as neither efficient nor reasonable and held both sides responsible for that outcome. The court remarked that the case “cried out” for resolution by more rational, negotiated means, given the small area and value of land at issue and the fact that a straightforward agreement between the neighbours could have removed the cloud on title.

On the evidence, the plaintiffs’ damages claims were particularly weak. Although they had pleaded substantial pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses, as well as punitive and exemplary damages, they provided little or no evidence to quantify or substantiate these alleged harms. The court concluded that the real substance of the dispute lay in clarifying the boundary and removing the cloud on title, not in extensive provable financial loss of the kind originally alleged.

The defendants, on the other hand, vigorously pursued a counterclaim and a claim for adverse possession. They alleged that their long-standing use of the area and the placement of fencing had vested rights in the disputed strip. However, the court later held that the counterclaim and the adverse possession theory had little chance of success on the evidence. The defendants failed to meet the stringent legal requirements necessary to establish adverse possession or any basis to shift the boundary or strip ownership away from the plaintiffs’ registered title.

The conduct of the trial was also undermined by procedural and preparation problems. At its outset, the plaintiffs caused significant delay by failing to properly respond to a Request to Admit, a procedural tool designed to narrow issues and shorten trials by having parties admit or deny specific facts. Their counsel was also not adequately prepared to cross-examine the defence expert surveyor, Mr. Tom MacDonald, resulting in further delay and inefficiency. The plaintiffs changed counsel during the litigation, and while the new lawyer ultimately worked to streamline matters, substantial additional time was required to “get up to speed” on the file. The judge later held that the defendants should not be made to pay for that transition through a costs award.

The overall tone of the litigation was highly contentious, occasionally veering into personal hostility. After the parties had exchanged formal written submissions on costs, they continued to send numerous emails to the court, advancing further arguments and criticisms. In their written submissions, counsel sometimes came close to personal attacks on each other rather than confining themselves to professional critique of conduct. During the costs phase, defence counsel sought to file additional submissions alleging personal, professional and ethical misconduct by the plaintiffs’ former counsel, who was no longer on record. The court refused to entertain those allegations, emphasizing that many of the alleged events had not occurred in the judge’s presence and that principles of natural justice required that a lawyer facing such allegations have a real opportunity to respond, likely in another forum specifically designed to address professional conduct issues.

Findings on liability and the property issues

In the main decision on the merits, released June 6, 2025 and subsequently referenced in the costs ruling, the court found in favour of the plaintiffs on the central issue. The judge determined that the disputed strip properly belonged to the plaintiffs and that the defendants’ fencing and use encroached upon their property. This resolved the boundary question and removed the cloud on the plaintiffs’ title. The plaintiffs also successfully defended against the defendants’ counterclaim and the adverse possession claim; both were dismissed as unsustainable on the evidence presented.

Although the plaintiffs had initially framed their case in part around claims for significant pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, as well as punitive and exemplary relief, the court made clear that virtually no substantive evidence supported such claims. As a result, the legal significance of the case lay far more in the declaration of boundary rights and title than in any meaningful monetary recovery.

The bills of costs filed by both sides were strikingly high, given the modest value of the land and the limited monetary result. The defendants claimed actual costs of about $137,000, while the plaintiffs reported approximately $121,610 in actual costs. The judge condemned these figures as “utterly and completely” disproportionate to the issues in dispute, viewing the case as an example of how boundary disagreements can become “runaway” litigation when parties and counsel do not sufficiently focus on proportionality and efficiency.

Costs decision and civil procedure principles

The subsequent costs decision, released on December 16, 2025, applied the court’s discretion under section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. There was no discussion of insurance wording or contractual policy terms; instead, the analysis centred on general civil procedure and the appropriate allocation of costs in light of the outcome, the offers to settle, the conduct of the parties, and the choice of forum.

Ordinarily, a party who succeeds on the main issue at trial and defeats a counterclaim would receive a costs award on at least a partial indemnity basis. The plaintiffs argued that they were such a party: they had succeeded in establishing the proper boundary line and in fending off the defendants’ counterclaim and adverse possession claim. They submitted that their partial indemnity costs, between two counsel, were reasonable and sought a substantial contribution to their legal fees, along with disbursements. They also highlighted their pre-trial and mid-trial offers to settle, which included terms such as removal of encroachments and the fence, construction of a new fence, and payment of damages plus costs, as evidence that they had tried to resolve or narrow the dispute.

The defendants maintained that the result was mixed and that each side should bear its own costs. They argued that the plaintiffs’ choice to proceed in Superior Court rather than before the Ontario Land Tribunal, combined with their pleaded but unproven damages claims, inflated the complexity and cost of the proceeding. The defendants further contended that the plaintiffs’ conduct—refusal to abandon questionable damages claims, failure to properly use the Request to Admit, initial opposition to a site view that the court later ordered, repeated attempts to refer to inadmissible evidence, and lack of preparation—contributed materially to the length and expense of the trial. The defendants also urged the court to take into account their limited financial circumstances when deciding whether to make any costs award.

The judge accepted that the plaintiffs were successful on the main issue and in defeating the counterclaim and adverse possession claim, and acknowledged that in the normal course they would be entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis for those aspects. However, the decision strongly emphasized that the matter should never have gone to a 12-day Superior Court trial. The judge viewed all participants—both parties and the court—as having allowed a relatively simple boundary dispute over land of nominal value to expand into disproportionate, system-straining litigation.

In particular, the court found that the plaintiffs bore a significant share of responsibility for the inefficiencies in the early stages of the trial, including their mishandling of the Request to Admit and their lack of readiness to cross-examine the defence expert. Furthermore, while the change of counsel might have been reasonable from the plaintiffs’ perspective, the resulting costs associated with bringing new counsel up to speed should not be shifted onto the defendants. Current counsel was commended for eventually streamlining the matter, but by that point, much of the inefficiency and cost had already been incurred.

On the other side, the court rejected the defendants’ request that no costs be awarded at all. The defendants had chosen to engage in this litigation, including advancing an adverse possession claim and a counterclaim that ultimately failed. They had the means to retain counsel and to pursue these claims, and their conduct had also contributed to the length and complexity of the proceedings. The court was not persuaded that their financial circumstances justified eliminating all cost consequences.

The resulting costs order reflected a compromise. The court exercised its discretion to deny the plaintiffs any award of counsel fees, despite their substantive success on the boundary issue and the counterclaim. At the same time, the court recognized that certain out-of-pocket expenses, particularly for expert survey evidence, would have been necessary regardless of the forum in which the boundary dispute was heard. The judge therefore ordered the defendants, jointly and severally, to pay the plaintiffs $25,000 in disbursements plus HST. No costs were awarded to the defendants.

Overall outcome and financial result

Considering both the June 6, 2025 decision on the merits and the December 16, 2025 costs decision, the plaintiffs were the overall successful party. They established the correct boundary line, removed the cloud on their title, and defeated the defendants’ counterclaim and adverse possession claim. While their broad monetary claims were not substantiated by the evidence, the court nonetheless recognized that they had incurred necessary out-of-pocket expenses, particularly for expert evidence that would have been required in any forum. Reflecting both their substantive success and the court’s concern with proportionality and shared responsibility for an over-litigated boundary dispute, the final financial outcome was an order that the defendants, jointly and severally, pay the plaintiffs $25,000 in disbursements plus HST, with no award for counsel fees and no costs in favour of the defendants.