Property owners brought an application seeking a declaration that they could enforce obligations under a private road maintenance agreement and compel mediation or arbitration regarding disputes about maintenance.
The respondents argued there was no privity of contract because the applicants were not parties to the same agreement.
The court held that the developer’s scheme of entering identical agreements with each purchaser, combined with an enurement clause binding successors and assigns, demonstrated an intention that the purchasers benefit from and enforce the obligations relating to road maintenance.
Alternatively, the court found the circumstances satisfied the third‑party beneficiary test articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada.
The applicants were declared entitled to rely on the agreement and to require mediation or arbitration concerning road maintenance disputes.
