Background: The case involved two strata corporations, KAS2084 (petitioner) and KAS1980 (respondent), regarding the interpretation of an easement registered in 1997. The dispute focused on the methods of entry through a security gate.

Petitioner's Position: KAS2084 contested the removal of a common access code for the security gate, arguing it hindered access for their service providers and guests.

Respondent's Position: KAS1980 defended the removal of the common code, citing abuse and unauthorized access, primarily in summer months.

Court's Analysis:

• Contractual Interpretation: The court applied principles from previous cases (Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp., Smith v. Balen) for interpreting the easement.
• Easement Provisions: The easement required equal unlocking privileges for both parties but did not specify a common access code.
• Inconvenience vs. Obstruction: The court distinguished between inconvenience and obstruction of access, finding that while removal of the common code was inconvenient, it did not constitute obstruction.

Court's Decision: The petition by KAS2084 was dismissed. The court held that the easement's terms were met as both parties faced equal inconvenience without the common code.

Costs: The respondent, KAS1980, was awarded costs on Scale B under the Supreme Court Civil Rules, as they were substantially successful. The costs were deemed reasonable for a one-day hearing, avoiding the need for further assessment.

Conclusion: The court emphasized the necessity of inconvenience given the gated community setup and the terms of the easement. The court also suggested considering a system where each strata unit has a specific access code, changed annually or biannually, to track unauthorized entry effectively.