I reject the respondent’s argument relying on Barbour v. Bailey, supra. Barbour v. Bailey, supra dealt with a very different situation, a party claiming the existence of a prescriptive easement from one property in favour of another. I find that Barbour v. Bailey is not applicable to the situation involving the lease in this case. The applicant in this case is not arguing that 60A has an easement in favour of 61A. Rather, it is arguing that the lease, properly construed, provides it with certain rights to connect to the electrical utility system, via 60A. For the reasons I have explained, I find that it does
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.