Legally Speaking - August 2015 (480)
News and Publications » Publications » Legally Speaking » Legally Speaking - August 2015 (480)
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Search Legally Speaking:
Legally Speaking (480, August 2015)

Number 480, August 2015


On occasion, buyers become interested in properties that are subject to historical easements, some over one hundred years old. The Property Law Act provides that a court may cancel an easement where the easement is "obsolete." Some buyers, and occasionally their advisors, assume that anything old must, for that reason alone, be obsolete and proceed to purchase those properties on the assumption that it will be easy to convince a judge that an old easement is an obsolete easement. Such is not always the case, as illustrated below.

In 1912, an owner sold part of his land on Vancouver Island. The only access to the parcel conveyed (Parcel A) was through the part retained by the seller (DL80). Unfortunately, no legal right of access was provided through the original transaction in 1912. In 1919, the lack of a legal right of access was addressed and the owner of DL80 granted an easement over DL80 for the benefit of Parcel A. The easement granted the owner of Parcel A, and her heirs and assigns, "the uninterrupted use of and passage in and along a 12 foot wide right of way with carts, vehicles or cattle at all times forever thereafter…" The recitals in the document indicated that the easement was being granted because the owner of DL80 "did not grant access to the land described in the said conveyance dated November 25, 1912…"

For over 85 years the easement was the only way to access Parcel A. In 2004, DL80 was subdivided and a road was built that provided direct road access to Parcel A. Despite the road construction, Parcel A's owner — a developer — continued to advertise to prospective purchasers of strata lots on Parcel A that they would be able to use the easement for direct pedestrian access to the beach.

The owner of the DL80 parcel subject to the easement applied to have the easement cancelled pursuant to Section 35(2) of the Property Law Act which provides that an easement may be cancelled where the court is satisfied that "because of changes in the character of the land, the neighbourhood or other circumstances the court considers material the registered charge or interest is obsolete."

The judge initially hearing the application to cancel the easement concluded from the recitals in the document that the right of access was limited to that which was necessary and convenient and due to the construction of the road, access over the easement area was no longer necessary. As such, she determined that the easement was obsolete and could be cancelled. The BC Court of Appeal (BCCA) disagreed and overturned her decision.1

The BCCA confirmed that recitals to an easement should only be referred to for the purpose of clarifying ambiguity. There was nothing ambiguous about the operative portion of the easement. There was no limitation on its duration. It was to be operative "forever thereafter." There was no language suggesting that the easement would terminate upon the provision of alternate access.

The BCCA concluded that had that been the intention of the parties, the solicitor drafting the easement would have provided express language to that effect. In the absence of express limiting language, the easement remained in full force and effect. The BCCA cited a number of previous decisions which concluded that where an easement was still in use it did not become obsolete merely upon the availability of alternative access.2

A buyer purchasing property that is subject to an historical easement should never assume that, simply because the easement is old, it will be considered obsolete and thus cancellable. If the cancellation of the easement is of importance to the buyer, they should seek legal advice before purchasing the property.

Brian Taylor
Bull Housser LLP

  1. McCorquodale v. Baranti Developments Ltd., 2015 BCCA 133.
  2. Chivas v. Mysek, 1986 BCJ No. 2547 (QL) (CA).
Collinson v. LaPlante, 1992 CanLII 685 (BC CA).
Vandenberg v. Olson, 2010 BCCA 204 .
Back issues of Legally Speaking are available on BCREA's website.
Legally Speaking is published eight times a year by email and quarterly in print by the British Columbia Real Estate Association. Real estate boards, real estate associations and REALTORS® may reprint this content, provided that credit is given to BCREA by including the following statement: "Copyright British Columbia Real Estate Association. Reprinted with permission." BCREA makes no guarantees as to the accuracy or completeness of this information or the currency of legal information.
Copyright © British Columbia Real Estate Association
1420 – 701 Georgia Street West
PO Box 10123, Pacific Centre
Vancouver, BC  V7Y 1C6
Phone 604.683.7702
Fax 604.683.8601
[email protected]
To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.
  Facebook   Twitter   LinkedIn