The plaintiff brought a summary judgment motion seeking a declaration of an easement over the defendants' property, claiming it was his only legal access.
The defendants opposed, arguing no right-of-way existed or had expired.
The court denied the summary judgment motion, finding that genuine issues requiring a trial existed, particularly due to conflicting expert opinions on the conveyancing history and the effect of Land Titles conversion, and unaddressed claims of easement by necessity or adverse possession.
The court emphasized the need for cross-examination of experts and a full judicial determination of the issues.
