The applicant sought declarations that her property had no right-of-way or easement for the respondent's use of a driveway and water well, and an order prohibiting such use.
The respondent filed cross-applications claiming a right-of-way or ownership of the disputed land.
The court found that the driveway and water well were entirely on the applicant's property, and no express, prescriptive, or implied easements existed in favour of the respondent's property due to unity of ownership by a predecessor in title and lack of strict necessity.
The court dismissed the respondent's cross-applications and granted the applicant's application, subject to a six-month suspension of enforcement to allow the respondent to establish alternative access and water.
