The appellants appealed a judgment declaring a non-seasonally limited easement over their property in favour of the respondents' landlocked cottages and enjoining them from interfering with access.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the deeds unambiguously granted unrestricted rights of way.
The court also rejected arguments regarding ineffective assistance of counsel in a civil context, the relocation of the easement, the test for a permanent injunction, the restriction to a single gate, and the absence of a respondent's factum at the application stage.
The judgment was varied on consent to remove the word 'prescriptive' as the easement was deeded.
