Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Adjacent property owners disputed a strip of land that had been used as part of a shared driveway for over 30 years.
• Two legal theories were raised: adverse possession under the Real Property Limitations Act and equitable relief through proprietary estoppel.
• The adverse possession claim failed because the applicant's use of the disputed strip was not inconsistent with the respondent's intended use of the land as vacant property.
• Proprietary estoppel was established based on the respondent's prolonged silence, the applicant's detrimental reliance in purchasing and maintaining the property, and the unconscionable nature of the respondent's abrupt assertion of ownership.
• Evidence of use spanning from at least July 1993 through 2024 was presented through multiple witnesses, including prior owners Brenda Giroux and Robert Dawson.
• Costs were not resolved at the hearing; the parties were directed to file written submissions if unable to agree.

Facts of the case

The case of 9409394 Canada Inc. v. Ghislain Lascelles, decided by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on June 22, 2026, concerns a dispute between owners of adjacent properties over a narrow strip of land. The respondent, Ghislain Lascelles, has owned his property since 1981, and his lands were vacant throughout the relevant period. The applicant, 9409394 Canada Inc., purchased its property on November 17, 2015. The applicant's property benefits from a registered easement — approximately 15 feet wide — over a corridor of the respondent's land, which is used as part of a driveway. This easement was not in dispute.

The dispute centered on an additional strip of land adjacent to the registered easement. Together, the easement and the disputed strip formed a single driveway approximately 18 feet wide. Of the easement's width, about 10 feet was used for the driveway, with the remainder serving as a grass buffer between the driveway and a neighbouring property. The disputed portion of the driveway was approximately 8 feet wide. From at least July 1993 through December 2024, the entire driveway functioned as a single surface — first covered in gravel and asphalt, and later in interlocking brick — with no visible boundary separating the easement from the disputed strip.

Multiple witnesses gave evidence of continuous use. Brenda Giroux, who owned the applicant's property from July 29, 1993 to January 24, 2003, affirmed that the full driveway was in place when she purchased the home and that she and her husband had interlocking brick installed over the entire driveway surface approximately a year after purchase, without seeking the respondent's permission. Robert Dawson, who owned the property from January 24, 2003 to July 31, 2006, provided a photograph showing the driveway as a single interlocking-brick surface across its full width. Evidence of use between July 31, 2006 and November 17, 2015 — when the property was occupied by Marc-André Labelle and his late common law spouse, Marie Laurette Christine Labelle — was provided through Ms. Tiley, an assistant to the applicant's counsel, who confirmed that Mr. Labelle stated they used the entire driveway during that period. The court noted this evidence was hearsay but found it unnecessary to resolve its admissibility, as the respondent did not dispute that the applicant's predecessors had actual, open, and continuous possession of the disputed strip from 2000 to 2010. The applicant's director, Mr. Boisvert, affirmed that the applicant had used and maintained the full driveway since acquiring the property, including repairing interlocking bricks in 2016 without notifying the respondent.

On November 30, 2024, the applicant listed its property for sale. Between December 20 and 24, 2024, the respondent erected a fence running down the center of the driveway, effectively splitting it in half and damaging some of the interlocking brick in the process.

Legal framework and issues

Two legal questions arose from these facts. First, whether the applicant had established adverse possession under the Real Property Limitations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.15, which extinguishes an owner's title after ten years of adverse possession. Second, and in the alternative, whether the applicant was entitled to equitable relief through proprietary estoppel. The respondent's property was registered in the Land Titles system on August 22, 2010, making the material period for adverse possession August 22, 2000 to August 22, 2010.

Court's reasoning and analysis

On the adverse possession claim, the court applied the established three-part test requiring: actual exclusive possession; possession with intention to exclude the true owner; and effective exclusion of the true owner. The respondent did not dispute that the applicant's predecessors had actual, open, and continuous possession during the material period. The contested issue was whether the use was inconsistent with the respondent's intended use of his land, which the parties agreed was to keep it vacant.

Justice Flaherty applied the Court of Appeal's jurisprudence in Masidon Investments Ltd. v. Ham (1984) and Fletcher v. Storoschuk et al. (1981), which establish that using — and even modifying or building on — property is not necessarily inconsistent with an owner's intention to keep land vacant. The court held that using the disputed strip as a driveway did not interfere with the respondent's ability to make no use of the land. The applicant's argument that the mutual or honest unilateral mistake exception should apply also failed: two prior owners had affirmed they knew the driveway extended beyond the registered easement, and the respondent himself understood the extent of the easement and knew the driveway exceeded it. Without evidence of mistaken belief on the Labelles' part for the 2006–2010 period, the court could not find mutual or unilateral honest mistake. Accordingly, the adverse possession claim was dismissed.

On proprietary estoppel, the court applied the three-part test from Cowper-Smith v. Morgan, 2017 SCC 61, requiring: encouragement by the respondent; detrimental reliance by the applicant to the respondent's knowledge; and an unconscionable attempt by the owner to renege on an earlier promise or representation. The court found that the respondent's silence for over 30 years — despite knowing the driveway extended onto his land — amounted to conduct that reasonably led the applicant to believe the respondent would not insist on his strict legal rights. The applicant relied on this to its detriment by purchasing the property with the reasonable understanding it could be accessed via an approximately 18-foot-wide driveway, and by maintaining and improving the driveway surface over time. The court further found that the respondent's abrupt erection of a fence — without notice or consultation — after more than 30 years of silence was unconscionable. The fence divided the driveway, left a visually unsightly obstruction, limited usable driveway width to approximately 8 feet, and made access difficult and potentially hazardous for larger vehicles such as ambulances and delivery trucks.

Ruling and overall outcome

The application was granted in favor of 9409394 Canada Inc. on the basis of proprietary estoppel. The court ordered the respondent to remove the fence forthwith and to repair the damaged interlocking brick by no later than April 15, 2026. The applicant's claim for general damages was dismissed as no evidence of non-monetary losses was presented. The question of whether the disputed land should vest in the applicant or be the subject of an easement was left open for further submissions if the parties could not agree. No exact monetary award was determined; costs were also reserved, with the parties directed to file written submissions of no more than three pages if they could not reach agreement — the applicant's submissions due within 14 days of the hearing, and the respondent's within 30 days.