Old Is Not Necessarily Obsolete #480

May 02, 2015

Posted by
Brian Taylor
Bull Housser LLP


On occasion, buyers become interested in properties that are subject to historical easements, some over one hundred years old. The Property Law Act provides that a court may cancel an easement where the easement is “obsolete.”  Some buyers, and occasionally their advisors, assume that anything old must, for that reason alone, be obsolete and proceed to purchase those properties on the assumption that it will be easy to convince a judge that an old easement is an obsolete easement. Such is not always the case, as illustrated below.

In 1912, an owner sold part of his land on Vancouver Island. The only access to the parcel conveyed (Parcel A) was through the part retained by the seller (DL80). Unfortunately, no legal right of access was provided through the original transaction in 1912. In 1919, the lack of a legal right of access was addressed and the owner of DL80 granted an easement over DL80 for the benefit of Parcel A. The easement granted the owner of Parcel A, and her heirs and assigns, “the uninterrupted use of and passage in and along a 12 foot wide right of way with carts, vehicles or cattle at all times forever thereafter…” The recitals in the document indicated that the easement was being granted because the owner of DL80 “did not grant access to the land described in the said conveyance dated November 25, 1912...”

For over 85 years the easement was the only way to access Parcel A. In 2004, DL80 was subdivided and a road was built that provided direct road access to Parcel A. Despite the road construction, Parcel A’s owner – a developer – continued to advertise to prospective purchasers of strata lots on Parcel A that they would be able to use the easement for direct pedestrian access to the beach.

The owner of the DL80 parcel subject to the easement applied to have the easement cancelled pursuant to Section 35(2) of the Property Law Act which provides that an easement may be cancelled where the court is satisfied that “because of changes in the character of the land, the neighbourhood or other circumstances the court considers material the registered charge or interest is obsolete.”

The judge initially hearing the application to cancel the easement concluded from the recitals in the document that the right of access was limited to that which was necessary and convenient and due to the construction of the road, access over the easement area was no longer necessary. As such, she determined that the easement was obsolete and could be cancelled. The BC Court of Appeal (BCCA) disagreed and overturned her decision.1

The BCCA confirmed that recitals to an easement should only be referred to for the purpose of clarifying ambiguity. There was nothing ambiguous about the operative portion of the easement. There was no limitation on its duration. It was to be operative “forever thereafter.” There was no language suggesting that the easement would terminate upon the provision of alternate access.

The BCCA concluded that had that been the intention of the parties, the solicitor drafting the easement would have provided express language to that effect. In the absence of express limiting language, the easement remained in full force and effect. The BCCA cited a number of previous decisions which concluded that where an easement was still in use it did not become obsolete merely upon the availability of alternative access.2

A buyer purchasing property that is subject to an historical easement should never assume that, simply because the easement is old, it will be considered obsolete and thus cancellable. If the cancellation of the easement is of importance to the buyer, they should seek legal advice before purchasing the property.

  1. McCorquodale v. Baranti Developments Ltd., 2015 BCCA 133., 2020 ONSC 3516
  2 Chivas v. Mysek, 1986 BCJ No. 2547 (QL) (CA).
    Collinson v. LaPlante, 1992 CanLII 685 (BC CA).
    Vandenberg v. Olson, 2010 BCCA 204.

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

Without limiting the Terms of Use applicable to your use of BCREA's website and the information contained thereon, the information contained in BCREA’s Legally Speaking publications is prepared by external third-party contributors and provided for general informational purposes only. The information in BCREA’s Legally Speaking publications should not be considered legal advice, and BCREA does not intend for it to amount to advice on which you should rely. You should not, in any circumstances, rely on the legal information without first consulting with your lawyer about its accuracy and applicability. BCREA makes no representation about and has no responsibility to you or any other person for the accuracy, reliability or timeliness of the information supplied by any external third-party contributors.

What we do

Popular tags within Legally Speaking

Popular posts from BCREA

  • Housing Market Update – March 2024
    Mar 18, 2024
  • Mortgage Rate Forecast
    Mar 25, 2024
BCREA Public Website Preview
BCREA Public Website Preview
BCREA Public Website Preview
BCREA Public Website Preview