The applicants sought a declaration that a right-of-way across their property, benefiting the respondents' adjacent properties, had been abandoned and extinguished.
The applicants argued that historical non-use, the disappearance of original sheds, and various obstructions demonstrated an intention to abandon the easement.
The court dismissed the application, finding that the respondents and their contractors had recently used the right-of-way for property renovations and that the applicants failed to prove an express or implied intention to abandon the property right.
