Ontario Court Confirms Certainty of Title in Registered Easement Dispute

On June 12, 2026, OEF Village Green Nominee Inc. (“OEF”) succeeded in an Ontario Superior Court application concerning the scope of a registered easement affecting its property. The court awarded OEF $150,000 in costs of the application and cross-application.

The dispute arose in the context of Carlyle Yonge Maitland GP Inc.’s (“Carlyle”) proposed development of a 62-storey residential building with more than 600 residential units located on both 33 and 37 Maitland Street, Toronto. OEF owns the neighbouring lands at 55 Maitland Street, over which a registered easement in favour of 37 Maitland Street has burdened approximately half of the driveway since 1965. The central issue was whether Carlyle could use the full driveway to access and service its proposed development.

Although OEF’s predecessors in title had permitted certain neighbouring uses of the entire driveway over time, the case turned in large part on the legal consequences of the OEF lands having been brought into Ontario’s land titles system in 1964 and held under Land Titles Absolute. OEF argued, and the court accepted, that where title is guaranteed under the Land Titles Act and the registered easement is defined by specified dimensions, then historical use, informal arrangements or “neighbourly accommodation” could not enlarge Carlyle’s rights or interfere with OEF’s registered property interests.

Unable to assert adverse possession based on post-1964 conduct, Carlyle advanced a cross-application seeking to expand the easement through several other legal doctrines, including the existence of an alleged historical unwritten agreement, easement by common intention and easement by proprietary estoppel. OEF resisted those arguments as, in substance, attempts to obtain adverse possession-style relief through alternative doctrines in a manner fundamentally contrary to the purpose and certainty of the land titles system. OEF sought declarations confirming that Carlyle’s rights were limited to the express terms and dimensions of the registered easement.

Following a two-day hearing before Justice Pollak, the court granted OEF’s application for declaratory relief and dismissed Carlyle’s cross-application in its entirety. The court declared that Carlyle did not have a right of access to an expanded easement and was only entitled to use the driveway in a manner consistent with the registered instrument. The court further declared that the easement burdening OEF’s property was only in favour of 37 Maitland Street and could not be used for the benefit of 33 Maitland Street.

The decision is significant as it reaffirms the protections afforded under Ontario’s land titles system to ensure certainty of title. It confirms that a party seeking to expand a registered easement bears the burden of proving the legal and evidentiary basis for doing so, and that longstanding practical use or neighbourly accommodation will not override the express limits of a registered easement where the owner holds guaranteed title in Land Titles Absolute.

Aird & Berlis represented OEF with a team led by Brian Chung and including Kristen Shorer (Litigation & Dispute Resolution), Maggie Bassani and Alexander Suriano (Municipal, Land Use Planning & Development) and Trevor Crowley (Real Estate).