Murray-Leung. v. Dyck

Murray-Leung. v. Dyck

The appeal was dismissed because the application judge did not err: aerial and testimonial evidence established continuous, open, peaceful and necessary vehicular use of the Gravel Driveway (including the encroaching portion) since at least 1977; the prescriptive easement elements were met; the judge did not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2026 ONCA 204
Parties
Applicant (respondent): Louise Murray-Leung; Applicant (respondent): Leslie Murray-Leung; Respondent (appellant): Brian James Dyck; Respondent (appellant): Jodi Lynn Eastwood
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 March 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil (property Easement/adverse Possession) / Appeal to the Court of Appeal From Application Judge of the Superior Court of Justice
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Prescriptive Easement, Adverse Possession, Lost Modern Grant, Acquiescence, Onus of Proof, Use of Aerial Photographic Evidence
Source Language
english
Property Law Civil Procedure Evidence Costs Prescriptive Easement Adverse Possession Lost Modern Grant Acquiescence +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Louise Murray-Leung

Applicant (respondent)

Leslie Murray-Leung

Applicant (respondent)

Brian James Dyck

Respondent (appellant)

Jodi Lynn Eastwood

Respondent (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Civil (property Easement/adverse Possession) / Appeal to the Court of Appeal From Application Judge of the Superior Court of Justice

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents established a prescriptive easement over portions of the Gravel Driveway encroaching on the appellants' property
  2. 2 Whether the respondents established adverse possession over the disputed land
  3. 3 Whether the application judge misapprehended photographic evidence and the physical permanence of the Driveway

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the application judge did not err: aerial and testimonial evidence established continuous, open, peaceful and necessary vehicular use of the Gravel Driveway (including the encroaching portion) since at least 1977; the prescriptive easement elements were met; the judge did not improperly reverse the onus but permissibly required the appellants to rebut the inference of acquiescence and they failed to do so.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellants ordered to cease interfering with the established easement and to remove items placed along the Driveway
  • Respondents awarded costs of the appeal in the all-inclusive amount of $8,500 (CAD)