1 total
The court dismissed claims for adverse possession and prescriptive easement over a laneway, finding alternative access existed.
The applicants, John Charles Brown and Joanne Muggette Brown, sought a declaration of adverse possession or a prescriptive easement over a laneway on Karen Savage's property.
Karen Savage, in a cross-application, sought a closing order for the laneway.
The court dismissed the Browns' claims for adverse possession and prescriptive easement, finding they failed to establish exclusive use or use "as of right." The court found that Savage did not require a closing order under the Road Access Act because the Browns had viable alternative access to their property from a public road, albeit at a cost.
Savage was granted the right to exclude the Browns from using the laneway, with a one-year suspension of enforcement to allow the Browns to implement alternative access.
