Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute centered on the scope and misuse of an easement over residential property (Lot 9).

• Plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction to stop the defendants from parking vehicles on the easement land.

• Summary trial process was used under Rule 9-7 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules.

• Plaintiffs partially succeeded—injunction granted for standing vehicles but claims regarding a retaining wall and irrigation box were dismissed.

• Costs became a focal point post-trial, particularly around whether a settlement offer reasonably should have been accepted.

• Court awarded 70% of Fast Track lump sum costs, rejecting full entitlement due to limited procedural activity and timing of the Fast Track election.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and filing

The plaintiffs, Jack and Gloria Horning, filed a Notice of Civil Claim on April 3, 2024, against several neighbouring property owners, including Ryan Kenneth Sather and Amber Lacey Pearson, known collectively as the Lot 9 defendants. The claim related to an easement affecting Lot 9 in a residential subdivision in British Columbia. The plaintiffs alleged that the Lot 9 defendants were unlawfully using the easement area by parking vehicles and constructing features such as a retaining wall and irrigation box, thereby interfering with their legal rights.

Despite a demand letter sent in August 2023 requesting compliance, the defendants did not adjust their behavior, prompting litigation. The plaintiffs eventually filed a summary trial application, and the matter was heard on June 20, 2025.

Claims and remedies sought

The plaintiffs sought several forms of relief: (1) a permanent injunction requiring the defendants to stop parking on the easement area, (2) orders regarding the removal or adjustment of the retaining wall and irrigation infrastructure, and (3) damages for past breaches. The core issue was whether the easement permitted the activities being carried out by the defendants, particularly parking.

Summary trial and court findings

The court decided the case through summary trial. The court found that the primary issue—the ongoing parking of vehicles on the easement—had only two possible outcomes: allowing or prohibiting the use. The court sided with the plaintiffs on this key issue, granting a permanent injunction that prohibits the Lot 9 defendants from leaving standing vehicles on the easement. However, the court dismissed the plaintiffs’ other claims concerning the retaining wall, the irrigation box, and any monetary damages. There was insufficient evidence of significant interference from these other features, and the plaintiffs had not established a case for damages.

Settlement offer and cost arguments

Prior to trial, the defendants made a formal offer to settle under Rule 9-1, which included two options: one involving payment and reduction of the easement’s size, and another allowing structures to remain if parking ceased. The plaintiffs rejected the offer. The court found that this offer could not have been ordered by the court due to the lack of a formal counterclaim and differences between the offer and the relief ultimately granted. As such, the offer did not defeat the plaintiffs’ entitlement to costs.

Cost determination and final award

The plaintiffs requested costs under the Fast Track litigation rule, which typically awards a lump sum of $8,000. However, the court noted that many procedural efficiencies associated with Fast Track actions were not present in this case—discovery was minimal, the summary trial was brief, and the Fast Track election occurred late in the proceedings. Therefore, the court exercised its discretion to reduce the lump sum award to 70%, granting the plaintiffs $5,600 in costs, exclusive of disbursements and taxes. No damages were awarded.

Final outcome

The plaintiffs were deemed the substantially successful party and secured a permanent injunction on the central issue. Although they did not obtain all the relief sought, they achieved the key objective of prohibiting vehicle parking on the easement. The defendants avoided orders regarding other encroachments and damages. The plaintiffs were awarded partial lump sum costs, while each side bore the burden of their strategic decisions during litigation.