The applicants sought a declaration of a prescriptive right-of-way over a 100-foot path on the respondents' property and damages for nuisance and interference.
The court first ruled on a preliminary motion to strike two affidavits filed by the applicants, finding them inadmissible under Rule 39.02(2).
On the main application, the court found that the applicants failed to establish a prescriptive easement, primarily because the property owners (both current and previous) did not have knowledge of the path's use and did not acquiesce to it.
Furthermore, the court found that the easement was not reasonably necessary, as the applicants had previously declined an opportunity to purchase land for a legal access road.
The claim for damages for nuisance and interference was also dismissed, as the respondents' property development did not violate bylaws and did not unduly interfere with the applicants' property enjoyment.
