The appellants appealed a decision interpreting a right-of-way over their cottage property in favour of the respondent's adjacent property.
The appellants argued the right-of-way only permitted maintaining a water pipeline, or alternatively, that the rights should be exercised on the same side of the property.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's finding that the instrument created two distinct rights: one for recreational lake access on the east side, and another to use a pump in the boathouse on the west side.
The court declined to rewrite the instrument to combine the rights-of-way.
