Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute over a right of way (servitude of passage) on a private road within a resort development.

• Plaintiffs sought confirmation of a servitude and a permanent injunction to prevent obstruction by the defendant.

• Defendant challenged the existence of a conventional servitude, arguing title documents were insufficient.

• Trial judge found both a conventional and destination-of-owner servitude existed and issued injunctive relief.

• Appeal court upheld the servitude and injunction but reduced the damages awarded for legal fees.

• Procedural misconduct and abuse of process were considered, but legal costs were adjusted due to overreach in the trial decision.

Facts and background

This case arises from a conflict over the use of a private road—chemin des Chantiers—within the Blueberry Lake Resort in Labelle, Québec. The appellant, 9401-0428 Québec inc., owned the road and attempted to block access to it, preventing the respondents, owners of neighboring chalets 51 and 53, from using it to reach their properties. The respondents, including Simon Adamson and Eleanor Horseman (owners of chalet 53) and 9414-8442 Québec inc. (owner of chalet 51), claimed they had a legal right of passage based on both historical use and property title documents.

In 2015, a prior Superior Court judgment (Judgment Dallaire) had confirmed a servitude of passage by destination of the owner for another chalet (chalet 52) located on the same road. Despite this, the appellant acquired ownership of the road in 2019 and began blocking access in 2021, installing barriers and sending cease-access notices to the chalet owners. This led the respondents to seek court intervention, demanding recognition of their right of passage and an injunction to prevent further interference.

Trial judgment

The Superior Court ruled in favor of the respondents. The judge recognized both a servitude of passage by destination of the owner and a conventional servitude based on title deeds. The court ordered the removal of barriers and prohibited the appellant from obstructing the road. In addition, the trial judge found the appellant’s conduct abusive, citing a deliberate strategy to force litigation despite clear legal documentation and judicial precedent (Judgment Dallaire). As a sanction, the appellant was ordered to pay $75,000 in legal costs to the respondents.

Appeal and analysis

The appellant challenged three key findings: the existence of a conventional servitude, the scope of the injunctions, and the damages awarded for legal fees. The Québec Court of Appeal upheld the existence of the servitude but found the debate over whether it was conventional or by destination to be academic, since both led to the same result. The court also confirmed the necessity of the injunctions, emphasizing that any barrier—even one not locked—could unlawfully hinder the servitude.

However, the court found that the trial judge misapplied legal principles regarding procedural abuse. While the judge cited both articles 51 and 342 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appellate court concluded that there were no significant procedural breaches within the litigation itself. The conduct being punished stemmed mainly from the period before the lawsuit was filed. This conduct could still qualify as an abuse of procedure under article 51, but it did not justify the full $75,000 award.

As a result, the Court of Appeal reduced the damages to $40,000, reasoning that while the appellant’s conduct was inappropriate and costly, the sanction must be proportionate to the actual prejudice suffered and proven. The respondents won on the core issue (right of passage upheld). The appellant won a reduction in the monetary judgment.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal ultimately allowed the appeal in part. It upheld the respondents’ right of passage and the injunctions protecting it, recognizing both the legal and practical importance of ensuring access to their properties. However, the damages awarded for legal fees were reduced to reflect proper legal standards on procedural abuse. The court emphasized that while aggressive litigation tactics may warrant sanctions, they must be supported by clear evidence of misconduct during the course of the proceedings, not just pre-litigation behavior.