Justice Bert Bunyan
Waterview Towers moved for summary judgment in its favor against 2610 Cropsey Development. 2610 cross-moved for an order requiring Waterview to provide a statutorily required undertaking in connection with a 2008 preliminary injunction. 2610 owned property adjacent to Waterview’s, in which ownership of a certain strip of land was at issue, described as “Centre Place.” Waterview argued it used Centre Place as a parking area of its residents without objection since 1989, and since 1976 if one included its predecessor in interest, claiming it acquired titled through adverse possession. 2610 claimed it was the rightful owner of Centre Place, arguing so-called “paper” easements may not be extinguished by adverse possession absent a demand by the owner that the easement be opened and a refusal by the party in alleged adverse possession. The court stated while Waterview demonstrated its use of the disputed land was open and notorious, 2610 demonstrated the existence of questions of fact precluding a grant of summary judgment in Waterview’s favor on its adverse possession claim. Thus, Waterview’s motion was denied. Also, as the court in 2008 failed to require Waterview provide a statutorily required undertaking, same was now granted.
