The property, 7 Hume Street, Dartmouth, is a vacant lot which has been in existence since at least 1948. In 2009, the property was sold to Ms. Grant who, at that time, owned the adjacent property at 5 Hume Street. Just prior to the conveyance, the property wasmigratedfrom the Registry of Deeds System to theLandRegistration System. There were no title or interest encumbrances recorded against the property.

At some point, prior to Ms. Grant's ownership, a drain pipe, 8 inches in diameter, had been installed underground at 7 Hume Street along the length of the boundary line with 9 Hume Street, from a catch basin in the street to Lake Banook.

In 2009, when Ms. Grant purchased the property, the lot was undersized and not capable of being developed. However, later that year, HRM changed the status of undersized lots in Dartmouth to be capable of being developed.

In the fall of 2017, an Agreement of Purchase and Sale was executed for the sale of the property, on conditions, including the ability of the purchaser to obtain a development permit and a building permit for the construction of a house. Halifax Water would have had to approve any building permit. The purchaser made inquiries to Halifax Water about the pipe in October 2017. Halifax Water claimed it had a 3 metre easement on each side of the pipe.

On November 23, the purchaser advised Halifax Water a recorded easement did not exist on the property, but he was prepared to sign an easement for a pipe running alongside the proposed house. On February 13, 2018, HRM approved a development permit for the proposed house. The closing date of the sale had been postponed several times and was now scheduled for June 1, 2018. On February 27, 2018, Halifax Water denied the purchaser's building permit application. Further discussions took place between Halifax Water and Ms. Grant. In correspondence dated April 4, 2018, Halifax Water's legal counsel acknowledged it did not have an easement over the property. The parties had further discussions, however, Halifax Water did not change its position. It continued to deny the purchaser's building permit based on the proposed location of the house within three meters of the pipe. As a result, the sale of the property was lost. On July 27, 2018, matters came to a head. In correspondence from Ms. Grant to Halifax Water's legal counsel, she advised Halifax Water it had no legal right to have the pipe on her property; she did not consent to it being there; and it could remove the pipe or pay her compensation. Halifax Water argued it had a prescriptive easement over the property. Its position was that it had open, notorious and continuous use of the pipe on the property for 20 years preceding the registration of the property.

1. What is an easement? Describe three ways an easement may come into existence. You must include Prescription as one of the ways in your answer.
2. Would the migration of 7 Hume St to the Land Titles system be fatal to a claim for a prescriptive easement? Why or why not?