what is the summary of this case?

The plaintiffs, Colleen Albiston and Maxwell Goldstein the "plaintiffs", own a property and lives at 189 Roslin Avenue, Toronto ("189"). They purchased it on July 20, 1998.

The defendants, Ivan Hin Ming Liu ("Ivan") and Macky Yuk Ming Liu ("Macky") the "defendants" are the owners of property i.e. 185 Roslin Avenue, Toronto ("185") which theypurchased it on August 20, 2008.

189 and 185 properties are directly adjacent or besides each other and share a commonmutual driveway which measures seven feet wide by a depth of 75 feet of the most northerly part of the lands from the front property lines. It encompasses by each property being subject to an easement/right of way in favour of the neighbouring property to the area of 3 feet 6 inches from the common property line (the "ROW"). ROW is made by express grants in the respective deeds of the two properties belonging to the owners .The plaintiffs also have a garage in front of 189 which could be accessed by a private/personal driveway, the whole of which is located on their own property. During the time of purchase, 185 had a garage at the rear of the property which was accessiblr with the help of the ROW.

In April 2010, Ivan , one of the defendant, met with the plaintiffs to discuss the defendants' plans to knock down the existing house and to commence construct a new residential dwelling altogether with a garage at the front of the new house to be reacheable by a private driveway entirely within the property of 185. They also discussed revamping the ROW with the plaintiffs final agreeing that the defendants could remove the asphalt covering the ROW during construction and furthermore to have it chamged by doing landscaping.

There existed contradictory evidence at trial regarding the dates of some of the events related to the construction of the new house on 185. On a balance of probabilities, It was found that:

(a)The demolition of the old house was commenced on October 4, 2010;

(b)The foundations of the new house were laid in early October 2010; and

(c)All external work was substantially completed in early December 2010.

Both of the plaintiffs and the defendant Ivan testified at trial in the court. Though the defendant Macky was present during the trial butshe did not testify.

The plaintiffs testified that their house has been built with a setback (they did not provide measurements) from the ROW line on their property, whereas the defendants have built not only to the ROW line but have in fact encroachedonto the ROW.