The appeal concerned interpretation of an easement over a strip of land used for pedestrian and vehicular access, egress, and parking.
The appellants argued the easement granted them exclusive parking rights, while the respondent maintained residual rights to use the servient lands.
The court held that the easement did not confer exclusivity, but clarified that the servient owner must exercise its residual rights in a manner consistent with and respectful of the easement rights.
Because the matter was presented on a meager agreed factual record, the court declined to define the parties' rights more specifically.
The judgment was affirmed with a variation, and each party was ordered to bear its own appeal costs.
