The parties were neighbours involved in a dispute over a shared well and water system located on the respondent's property.
The applications judge declared the appellants had an easement by grant for the use of the well, but no easement to repair, upgrade, or replace it.
On appeal, the appellants argued the judge erred in determining the scope of the easement.
The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence showing the well had been decommissioned and the appellants had installed alternate water systems.
The court dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal, finding insufficient evidence that the original grant contemplated the actual replacement of the well.
