The plaintiff and defendant, adjoining landowners, disputed the existence and use of a right of way over a laneway between their properties.
The plaintiff sought to rectify the parcel register to show its right of way, while the defendant claimed the right of way had expired, been abandoned, or was restricted.
The court found that the plaintiff had a valid right of way that had not expired or been abandoned, and ordered the rectification of the title.
However, the court restricted the plaintiff's use of the right of way to pedestrian access only, finding that vehicular access was unsafe and not viable.
The plaintiff's claim for damages for lost rents and profits was dismissed for lack of proof.
