skip to main content
Back to Top

Ontario Court of Appeal places limits on the scope of deeds of easement

Oct 18, 2018

The Ontario Court of Appeal has affirmed that a deed of easement will not create an exclusive right of way to a grantee of an easement unless the deed expressly says so.  Raimondi v. Ontario Heritage Trust, 2018 ONCA 750, held that a deed of easement, which granted certain individuals a private right of way for use of a driveway, only granted the individuals a right to use the driveway in common with others.

 The Facts

Idalgo and Nancy Raimondi (the “Easement Holders”) purchased a residential property in Caledon, Ontario (the “Residential Property”), which is surrounded by 90 acres of parkland (the “Willoughby Property”). The Willoughby Property is owned by the Ontario Heritage Trust (the “OHT”).

The only vehicular access to the Residential Property is via a driveway through the Willoughby Property. The Easement Holders do not own the driveway, but they hold an easement over it to access the Residential Property. This right of way was conferred by a deed of easement when the OHT severed the Residential Property from the Willoughby Property in 1993. The deed of easement states that the Easement Holders have been granted a “free, uninterrupted and unobstructed” right of way.

There are a number of popular hiking trails on the Willoughby Property, some of which predated the severance of the Residential Property from the Willoughby Property. The driveway that leads to the Residential Property is the most popular access point for hikers using the trails. The OHT did not permit the public to drive on the driveway, but the public was expressly invited to walk up the driveway to access the trails.

The Easement Holders brought an application seeking a declaration that the easement granted them exclusive use of the driveway, and that members of the public who walked over the driveway to access the trails were therefore trespassers.

The Easement Holders argued that: (1) they had the exclusive right over the driveway, based on the language of the deed of easement; and (2) the OHT had substantially interfered with the Easement Holders’ right of way by inviting the public to use the driveway.

The OHT argued that the deed of easement and the surrounding circumstances demonstrated that the Easement Holders did not have the right to exclusive use of the driveway.  The OHT provided evidence that it had made public statements that revealed a continued intention to allow public use of the driveway. The OHT also provided evidence of correspondence between the OHT and the initial easement holders (who owned the Residential Property before the Easement Holders) that demonstrated an understanding between the parties that the initial easement holders were not acquiring an exclusive right of way.

The application judge held that the clear language of the deed of easement did not grant the Easement Holders the exclusive use of the driveway.  The application judge also held that the OHT had not substantially interfered with the Easement Holders’ right of way because foot traffic on the driveway did not constitute a “substantial interference”.

The decision was upheld on appeal, with the Court of Appeal affirming the Easement Holders did not have any exclusive right over the driveway and that the use by the public of the driveway did not substantially interfere with the Easement Holder’s right of way.

The Takeaway

This decision illustrates that the language of a grant will govern its interpretation.  Even if a deed confers a right of way that is “uninterrupted and unobstructed”, that does not mean that the right will be exclusive, unless the deed expressly says so.

Related Lawyer

Recent BLawg posts

Retirement Announcement - Ron Haber

Jan 15, 2021

Ron Haber has retired from the practice of law after almost 35 years as a lawyer to become a residential and commercial real estate sales agen...

Bankruptcy Trustee Successfully Asserts Extension of Subsection 38(2) Commercial Tenancies Act Rights After Landlord Argues Lease was Surrendered

Jul 17, 2020

In a recent decision, the Ontario Superior Court not only granted a bankruptcy trustee access to a premises and the right to assign a lease, despite the landlord’s claim that the same trustee, acting as receiver had previously surrendered the lease to the landlord, but it also extended the trustee’s time period within which to exercise those rights...

The Daoust Vukovich LLP Award

Jul 10, 2020

We are living in extraordinary times. While the outbreak of COVID-19 has been a demanding presence, we have also seen new and necessary attention to anti-Black racism and the barriers faced by Black, Indigenous and People of Colour (BIPOC) communities. At Daoust Vukovich LLP, we are committed to social justice and are taking action against systemic racism within the Canadian legal profession. Recognizing that racism has prevented valued members of Canadian society from obtaining a formal legal education, DV has created a new award at Ryerson's Faculty of Law...

All content ©Copyright 2016 Daoust Vukovich LLP. All rights reserved. Law firm marketing | Cubicle Fugitive