The appellant sought a declaration of a prescriptive easement over a laneway on the respondent's neighbouring property.
The appellant's predecessor in title had used the laneway openly for several years.
In 1987, the predecessor asked the respondent's predecessor to sign a right-of-way agreement, which was refused.
Later, the respondent's predecessor posted 'private driveway' signs.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the 1987 request for permission amounted to an acknowledgment that the use was not 'as of right', and the subsequent posting of signs constituted an overt act of protest that interrupted the 20-year prescriptive period.
