The appellant appealed a summary judgment granting specific performance of an easement agreement in favour of the respondent.
The parties had signed an 'Easement Summary' to provide road access to the respondent's water-access-only property, but the appellant later refused to finalize the formal easement, demanding additional consideration including a severed lot.
The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's findings that the Easement Summary was a binding preliminary agreement containing all essential terms, that there was no genuine issue for trial, and that specific performance was the appropriate remedy.
The appeal and the motion for leave to appeal costs were dismissed.
