Law360 Canada ( March 7, 2025, 10:04 AM EST) -- Appeal by appellants and respondents over a dispute concerning an easement between neighbouring properties. The appellants owned a mixed commercial-residential building that relied on a tunnel easement through the adjacent property owned by the respondent 1730849 Ontario Ltd to access her loading dock. The easement was established in a 1957 deed, granting a right-of-way through the tunnel. The appellant Paiva ("Paiva") initiated legal action against the respondents Buckley ("Buckley") and the Town of Newmarket ("Town"), claiming that Buckley substantially interfered with her easement rights by altering the tunnel and allowing vehicles to block it. She argued that the changes, sanctioned by a 2010 memorandum of understanding between Buckley and the Town, were made without her consultation and significantly hindered her access. Buckley counterclaimed, accusing Paiva of illegally parking on his property. He contended that the dispute stemmed from Paiva's mistaken belief that he had no right to use the tunnel and that she had not demonstrated any actual interference with her access. The trial judge dismissed Paiva's claims against the Town, finding no substantial interference with her easement rights from the Town's actions. However, the judge found that Buckley had interfered with Paiva's right-of-way by parking in the tunnel and allowing others to do so, which warranted a permanent injunction to prevent such parking. Paiva appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred in interpreting the easement and in dismissing her claims. She contended that the easement granted her uninterrupted access and that Buckley's actions constituted substantial interference. Buckley cross-appealed, challenging the scope of the injunction....