Appeal of a trial judgment in a property dispute between cottage owners.
The trial court found that the appellants had trespassed on the respondent's water lot and issued a permanent injunction restraining them from entering the dry land portion.
The appellants' counterclaim for an easement was dismissed.
On appeal, the appellants raised new arguments regarding riparian rights, accretion, and the high water mark, which had not been argued at trial.
The appellants also challenged the sufficiency of the trial judge's reasons and sought to adduce fresh evidence.
The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding that the appellants were attempting to fundamentally alter their case post-trial and that the trial judge's reasons were sufficient.
