Case snapshot
At a glance
- Case
- Can a Fence Block a Right-of-Way on Your Ontario Property?
- Court / Tribunal
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Citation
- 2026 ONCA 468 ↗
- Date
- June 26, 2026
- Area of law
- Employment Law
- Key issue
- Whether a fence that reduced convenience of access substantially interfered with a granted right-of-way, and whether the decision to erect it amounted to oppressive corporate conduct under Ontario's Not-for-Profit Corporations Act.
- Outcome
- The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, upholding the application judge's findings on the location of the easement, the effect of a subsequent agreement, the absence of substantial interference, and the failure to establish an oppression remedy.
- Why it matters
- Property owners and members of not-for-profit corporations need to understand that reduced convenience alone does not constitute interference with an easement, and that reasonable expectations must be proven with evidence to ground an oppression claim.
Legal principle
The rule from this case
An easement grants the holder the right to use a specific route — not the most convenient route. Ontario courts have consistently held that interference is only legally significant when it makes the granted route unavailable or unusable. If the original path remains accessible by vehicle, the fact that a fence makes access less convenient does not amount to a violation of the right-of-way. On the corporate side, Ontario's Not-for-Profit Corporations Act provides an oppression remedy when an organization's conduct is oppressive, unfairly prejudicial, or unfairly disregards a member's interests. But the remedy is not automatic. A claimant must prove, with actual evidence, that they held a reasonable expectation that was defeated by the corporation's conduct. A decision that is inconvenient or unwelcome does not meet that threshold without more.
Important limits
What this does not mean
This decision does not mean a landowner can erect any fence anywhere and call it lawful. If a fence physically blocks the granted route — making it impassable or unusable by vehicles — that would still constitute substantial interference. The court's ruling is narrow: where the original route remains open and functional, a preference for a different or more convenient path is not protected by the easement. The oppression ruling also does not mean that not-for-profit corporations are immune from challenge. It means that vague or unsupported claims of unfairness will not succeed. Members who can point to concrete, evidence-backed reasonable expectations — and show those expectations were deliberately defeated — may still have a viable oppression claim.
Can a Fence Legally Block Access to a Right-of-Way in Ontario?
No — but only if the fence makes the granted route genuinely unusable. Ontario’s Court of Appeal confirmed in Bennett v. Chadwick, 2026 ONCA 468 (CanLII) that an easement protects access to a specific route, not access to the most convenient route. If the original path remains open and passable by vehicles, a fence that forces you to take a slightly less direct line does not legally interfere with your right-of-way.
This distinction matters enormously for anyone dealing with a neighbour dispute over shared access, a driveway easement, or a right-of-way that has been partially obstructed.
What Is an Easement and How Is It Located?
An easement is a legal right to use someone else’s land for a specific purpose — most commonly, to cross it. The location of that right is fixed by the original instrument that created it, whether that is a deed, a resolution, or a registered document.
In this case, the court examined a right-of-way whose origin traced back to a 1961 shareholder resolution. The application judge reviewed historical documents and treated a sketch as an illustrative aid rather than a definitive boundary description. The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error in that approach and upheld the findings about where the route began and how it crossed the relevant lots. The takeaway: courts will look carefully at the full historical record, not just the most recent map or sketch, when locating an easement.
Does a Later Agreement Change or Cancel an Existing Right-of-Way?
Not automatically. A subsequent agreement only modifies or replaces an existing easement if it clearly describes a new route, terminates the old one, or relocates it. If the later document is silent on those points, courts will treat the original right-of-way as continuing.
Here, a 1974 agreement was argued to have superseded the 1961 resolution. The court disagreed. Because the 1974 document contained no route description and said nothing about terminating or relocating the earlier right-of-way, the surrounding circumstances supported continuity. Prior use under a licence — rather than a formal easement — was also distinguished. This is a reminder that vague or incomplete follow-up agreements rarely undo clearly established property rights.
What Counts as Substantial Interference With a Right-of-Way?
Substantial interference means the granted route is no longer reasonably available or usable — not merely less convenient. The court applied established principles confirming that a preference for a different driveway path is not protected by an easement.
In this dispute, a fence was erected that the property owners argued blocked their access. The court found the original route remained available and usable by vehicles. The inconvenience of the new fence arrangement did not rise to the level of substantial interference. Reduced convenience, standing alone, is not enough to force a modification of the granted route.
Can a Not-for-Profit Corporation Be Sued for Oppression Over a Fence Decision?
Yes, it can be sued — but the claim must be supported by evidence of defeated reasonable expectations. Ontario’s Not-for-Profit Corporations Act, 2010 gives members a remedy when a corporation’s conduct is oppressive, unfairly prejudicial, or unfairly disregards their interests. The court here followed the framework from Wilson v. Alharayeri and BCE Inc. v. 1976 Debentureholders.
The appellants argued the fence decision was oppressive. The court found no evidentiary foundation for that claim. Reasonable expectations were not proven, and the fence decision was not shown to be unfair in the legal sense. The oppression remedy is a powerful tool, but it requires more than disagreement with a corporate decision.
Practical Takeaways for Property Owners and Not-for-Profit Members
- Check the original instrument carefully. The location of your easement is fixed by the document that created it — historical sketches and later agreements may not change that.
- A fence is not automatically illegal. If your original route remains open and passable, a neighbouring fence may not constitute interference, even if it is inconvenient.
- Subsequent agreements need clear language. If you want a new agreement to modify or cancel an easement, it must explicitly say so — vague documents will not do the job.
- Oppression claims need evidence. If you are a member of a not-for-profit corporation and believe a decision was unfair, document your reasonable expectations and how they were defeated before bringing a claim.
- Get legal advice before building or blocking. Whether you are erecting a fence near a right-of-way or challenging one, the legal line between inconvenience and interference is fact-specific and easy to misjudge.
If your situation involves an employment-related property dispute or a workplace matter connected to a not-for-profit organization, our Ontario employment lawyers can help you understand your rights. For those in the Hamilton and Burlington corridor, our Burlington employment law team and Hamilton employment law team are familiar with local property and workplace issues that often intersect.
UL Lawyers offers a free initial consultation from our Burlington office and serves clients across Ontario. If you have questions about a right-of-way dispute, an easement, or a not-for-profit oppression claim, contact our team to discuss your situation — no obligation, plain-English advice from the start. Reach out to our Ontario employment and property lawyers to get started.
This article is automated commentary on a public court decision and is for general information only — not legal advice. Decisions rely on facts unique to each case. If you are affected by a similar issue, contact a lawyer for advice specific to your situation.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions
An easement is a formal property right that runs with the land and can be enforced against future owners, while a licence is a personal permission that can be revoked. Ontario courts treat them very differently when disputes arise over access to land.
Only if the fence substantially interferes with your granted right-of-way — meaning the route is no longer reasonably usable. If the original route remains passable, courts have held that reduced convenience alone is not enough to require the fence to be moved.
You need to show that you held a reasonable expectation about how the corporation would act, and that the corporation's conduct defeated that expectation in a way that was oppressive, unfairly prejudicial, or unfairly disregarded your interests. Vague or unsupported claims of unfairness are unlikely to succeed.