Augusto P. Palombi

The appellants purchased 1700 acres of land and sought a declaration under the Road Access Act or a prescriptive easement to use two roads on the respondent's adjacent 40-acre property.

The trial judge dismissed the claims, finding alternate access existed and the appellants failed to prove continuous use for a prescriptive easement.

On appeal, the appellants argued the trial judge erred in assessing alternate legal access and failing to apply the doctrine of lost modern grant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that alternate access over private property can constitute legal access and that the appellants failed to establish the necessary continuous, uninterrupted, open, and peaceful use to raise a presumption of lost modern grant.

The appellant appealed a decision regarding the validity of a sworn information.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it unnecessary to decide whether extrinsic evidence was admissible because the material in the information itself established the year it was sworn, proving the limitation period had not expired.

The information was not a nullity.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment dismissing their claim for losses allegedly sustained due to misrepresentations by a municipal solicitor.

The trial judge found no evidence of misrepresentation, largely based on the credibility of the appellants' principal, and concluded that reliance on the alleged misrepresentation would have been unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal found no error in these findings and dismissed the appeal with costs.