Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Appellants Isabelle Guilbault and François Gallant sought a right-of-way servitude over neighbouring lots to access the southern portion of their 70-acre property in Mont-Tremblant by motorized vehicle.
• Central to the dispute was whether the southern portion of Lot '003 qualified as physically or economically landlocked under articles 997 and 998 of the Civil Code of Québec.
• Physical enclosure was found absent because the lot already had access to a public road via a private road leading to the northern portion.
• Existing access by boat across Lac Travers or on foot via a municipal hiking trail was assessed as to whether it was insufficient, overly difficult, or impracticable for the exploitation of the property.
• Evidence supporting the appellants' proposed land uses — lot sales for residential construction and forestry operations — was found to be either embryonic and hypothetical, or insufficiently economically significant to justify a forced right of way.
• No palpable and overriding error was demonstrated in the trial judge's cost-benefit analysis, and the appeal was dismissed without costs.

Facts of the case

Isabelle Guilbault and François Gallant are co-owners of lot number 5 888 003 of the cadastre of Québec (Lot '003), a 70-acre property located in Mont-Tremblant in the Laurentians. The northern portion of the lot, where the appellants' residence sits, has direct access to a public road via a private road connecting to chemin du lac Forget. The southern portion — a wooded area of approximately 50 acres — is separated from the northern portion by Lac Travers, and can only be reached by crossing the lake by boat or on foot via a hiking trail owned by the Ville. Unable to access the southern portion by motorized vehicle, the appellants brought a legal action seeking a right-of-way servitude over the lots of several neighbouring landowners: 13062775 Canada Inc., 9376-8174 Québec Inc., Kevin Fournier, Hélène Boivin, Nicole Boivin, and Dennis Mount. On 14 April 2025, the Honourable Andres C. Garin of the Superior Court (district of Terrebonne) dismissed the appellants' claim, finding no physical or economic enclosure that would entitle them to the servitude sought. The appellants then appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Relevant legal provisions

The right to a passage servitude under Quebec civil law is governed by articles 997 and 998 of the Civil Code of Québec, which provide a remedy where a property is landlocked — meaning it has no adequate access to a public road. The concept of enclosure can be either physical (no access at all) or economic (access exists but is insufficient, excessively difficult, or impracticable for the exploitation of the property). The appellants argued that Lot '003 fell within at least one of these categories, particularly given that Lac Travers — a private lake — is not a "public road" within the meaning of article 997 C.c.Q., and that municipal regulations limiting each lot to one dock prevented them from installing a second dock on the southern shore.

Reasoning and analysis

The Court of Appeal, composed of the Honourable Suzanne Gagné, Patrick Healy, and Benoît Moore JCA, examined the three grounds of appeal and rejected each. On the question of physical enclosure, the court confirmed the trial judge's finding that Lot '003 already has access to a public road — chemin du lac Forget — by means of the private road leading to the northern portion. The fact that Lac Travers is a private lake was held to be irrelevant: the lake is not the "public road" contemplated by article 997 C.c.Q., and the lot's existing road connection to the public network remained undisputed. The court found that the trial judge had in fact considered the concept of partial enclosure, but appropriately examined it through the lens of economic enclosure, which was the more apt framework given the circumstances.

On economic enclosure, the court reaffirmed that whether existing access is insufficient or merely inconvenient is a deeply fact-specific determination. The appellants proposed two future uses for the southern portion: the sale of lots for potential residential construction, and forestry operations. As to the first, the trial judge found the evidence thin and the project embryonic and hypothetical, leaving him without an adequate factual foundation to conduct the cost-benefit analysis required for an economic enclosure assessment. The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error in that conclusion. As to forestry, the trial judge acknowledged the project was more concrete, but noted that the appellants had no intention of entering the commercial firewood trade and principally contemplated personal consumption. The sole activity truly requiring motorized vehicle access was the use of a wood chipper to produce fertilizer from tree branches. On the cost-benefit analysis for this activity, the court found the economic benefit negligible and "considerably subjective," as no evidence was adduced as to the concrete advantages such access would bring to the property. The court also recalled the established principle that a property does not become landlocked merely because the owner considers the existing access inadequate for the use they intend to make of it — the analysis must be grounded in the actual characteristics, use, destination, and situation of the land.

Ruling and overall outcome

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. No costs were awarded, as the respondents — 13062775 Canada Inc., 9376-8174 Québec Inc., Kevin Fournier, Hélène Boivin, Nicole Boivin, and Dennis Mount — had not filed a notice of appearance. The respondents were therefore the successful parties. In closing, the court noted that it had raised at the hearing the possibility of the respondents voluntarily permitting the appellants occasional motorized vehicle access to the southern portion of Lot '003 or to transport wood, and encouraged the parties to discuss this in a spirit of collaboration and good neighbourliness. No monetary award, damages, or costs were ordered.