Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute centered on the plaintiff’s long-standing access over a roadway on the defendants’ adjacent land.

• Court examined whether an easement existed, either expressly, by implication, or through proprietary estoppel.

• Evidence confirmed the access route was essential for the plaintiff’s business and used for over 20 years.

• Defendants obstructed the route and engaged in threatening conduct, triggering claims of nuisance and trespass.

• The court found that reliance on access rights and detrimental investment supported the grant of a permanent easement.

• Injunctive relief, damages, and a declaration of easement were granted to protect the plaintiff’s land access.

Facts and outcome

Acadia Equipment Rentals Limited operated a business on a property near Port Williams, Nova Scotia, and had accessed that site via a roadway over neighbouring lands owned by Jaylynn Enterprises Limited and two individuals, Jay Robert Richards and Robert James Richards. For over two decades, Acadia used this route without interruption, relying on it to transport heavy equipment in and out of the property. The dispute arose when the Richards family began to interfere with this access in 2021 by placing physical obstructions and engaging in aggressive behaviour toward Acadia’s personnel.

Acadia brought an action seeking a declaration of easement, injunctive relief to prevent further obstruction, and damages. The defendants denied that any easement existed and argued that Acadia was trespassing. They claimed Acadia’s use was merely tolerated and could be revoked at any time.

The court, presided over by Justice Coughlan, considered whether Acadia had established a legal or equitable right to access over the roadway. While there was no express easement on title, the court analyzed whether an easement existed by implication or under the doctrine of proprietary estoppel. The evidence showed that Acadia had openly, continuously, and necessarily used the route since at least 2001. This use was known to the defendants, and Acadia had made infrastructure and operational investments in reliance on the access.

Justice Coughlan found that denying Acadia continued use of the roadway would be inequitable, given their long-standing reliance and the defendants’ lack of objection until the conflict arose. The court also addressed the defendants’ conduct, which included placing heavy equipment to block the path and using threatening language toward Acadia’s employees. This conduct was found to constitute nuisance and interference with property rights.

The court granted a permanent easement over the access road in favour of Acadia’s property. A permanent injunction was issued restraining the defendants from obstructing the roadway or interfering with its use. Damages of $25,000 were awarded to Acadia for loss and disruption, and the court retained jurisdiction for enforcement purposes.

This decision reinforces the courts’ willingness to protect informal access arrangements that have become essential to a party’s business operations, especially where conduct gives rise to equitable claims like proprietary estoppel and nuisance.