COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

Page: 78
[190] In Purvis‟ statutory declaration, she deposed that while she and her husband were
the owners of 394A Lakeshore Road West from 1975 to 2002, their property enjoyed the
benefit of a registered right of way over a portion of the neighbouring lands (shown as
Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4 on the respondent‟s draft reference plan). She further deposed that
their property enjoyed the benefit of a prescriptive easement over a 9.83 metre strip of the
respondent‟s property, extending from the Misek property to the edge of Lake Ontario.
She stated that during their ownership, she and her husband used and enjoyed the
prescriptive easement in a manner that was “continuous, uninterrupted, open and
peaceful”.
[191] Misek‟s objection to the respondent‟s application was delivered to the Registrar
for Land Titles in early May 2010. On May 11, 2010, without abandoning its Land Titles
Act application, the respondent commenced an action against Misek and Purvis for $5
million in damages for slander of title and injurious or malicious falsehood.
[192] Misek and Purvis moved under Rule 21 for an order staying or dismissing the
action on the basis that: (1) the action failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action
against Purvis; (2) there was another proceeding pending in Ontario between the same
parties in respect of the same subject property, namely, an administrative proceeding
under the Land Titles Act; and (3) the action was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of
process.