In the context of a CCAA restructuring, the respondent was previously ordered to specifically perform its obligation to reconvey certain lands to a special purpose entity, which had agreed to sell a portion of those lands to the moving party.
The respondent refused to complete the reconveyance, arguing that the parties had not agreed on the terms of 'shared facilities and/or reciprocal easement agreements' required under the reconveyance agreement.
The moving party brought a motion for the court to interpret the agreement and impose terms.
The court held it had jurisdiction to determine the terms of the reconveyance and found that the respondent's demanded easements (including for undefined future utilities, carbon sequestration, and emissions) were not valid easements at common law and did not meet the contractual requirement of being 'shared' or 'reciprocal'.
The court directed the parties to attempt one final negotiation before it would impose the final terms of the easement agreement.
