Background
Paul and Roberta Bennett own Lot 52 in the Cressview Lakes residential development, a land-locked parcel requiring access across adjacent lots. They claimed a right-of-way over Lot 46, owned by Kimberly Chadwick, to reach their property. When Chadwick erected a fence, the Bennetts sued, arguing it unlawfully interfered with their access rights established by a 1974 agreement between the then-owners of Lots 46 and 52. They also claimed Cressview Lakes Corporation acted oppressively by permitting the fence construction without consultation and failing to disclose corporate records.
The application judge dismissed the claim, finding the governing right-of-way originated from a 1961 shareholder resolution (not the 1974 agreement), that it ran across Lots 45 and 46 in a route distinct from the Bennetts’ preferred path, and that the fence did not substantially interfere with that right-of-way. The Bennetts appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal. The court affirmed that the right-of-way serving Lot 52 was created by the 1961 shareholder resolution and remained the governing easement. The 1974 agreement, though acknowledged, did not identify a specific route and thus could not be interpreted as creating a new or superseding right-of-way. The court emphasized that the 1974 document reflected and confirmed the existing 1961 arrangement rather than replacing it.
On the fence itself, the court found it was erected on land unencumbered by the easement. Although the Bennetts had previously used an alternative, more convenient route across Chadwick’s property as a personal license (not a right-of-way), Chadwick lawfully revoked that privilege when the Bennetts refused to remove property improperly stored on Lot 46. The court rejected claims that the fence substantially interfered with the granted right-of-way, noting that the Bennetts retain access along the original route, even if less conveniently than before.
The oppression claim against Cressview failed for lack of evidentiary foundation. The court held that corporate oppression requires both harmful conduct and unfairness; mere disagreement over property access or frustration with corporate decisions does not meet this threshold. The fence construction was a reasonable response to the Bennetts’ improper storage of property on Lot 46.
Key Takeaways
- Easement rights are strictly limited to those expressly granted; subsequent agreements cannot unilaterally relocate or expand them without clear language identifying a new route.
- A subsequent agreement confirming or reflecting an existing arrangement does not create a distinct easement superseding the original grant.
- Personal licenses to use property (as opposed to easements) are revocable at the licensor’s will and do not create binding property rights.
- Reduced convenience or changed circumstances do not constitute a “substantial interference” with a granted easement if the easement remains exercisable along its original route.
- Corporate oppression claims in property disputes require evidence of unfair conduct and breach of reasonable corporate expectations, not merely harmful outcomes or corporate inaction.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the boundaries of easement interpretation and reinforces that property owners cannot escape the terms of their original grants merely because circumstances have changed or alternative access routes become preferable. The strict approach to interpreting historic property documents protects adjacent landowners from unexpected claims and expansions of easement scope.
For homeowners in residential developments, the ruling underscores that access rights are narrowly defined and that reliance on informal or convenient arrangements (rather than formal easements) offers no legal protection. The decision also reinforces a high threshold for oppression remedies in property disputes, preventing such claims from becoming an alternative avenue for contesting ordinary property disagreements between neighbors.
✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.