The appellant closed an access road leading to the respondents' landlocked cottage properties after the respondents refused to pay an increased annual user fee.
The appellant argued it could close the road without a court order under the Road Access Act because the respondents had 'alternate road access' via an unopened municipal road allowance or by paying the requested fee for the existing road.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that 'alternate road access' requires an existing, different road, and neither an unopened road allowance nor the same road subject to a fee qualifies.
