that the adoption of such an exception to the positive covenants rule is a matter best left to the legislature (at para.
80, citing Amberwood, at para. 75);
(2) the majority in Amberwood accepted the availability of the
conditional grant exception to the positive covenants rule
under Ontario law, but concluded that it did not apply on
the facts of that case (at para. 96);
(3) in light of post-Amberwood developments in the law, specifically, Wilkinson in England and Wentworth Condominium
Corp. in Ontario, the reasons of the dissenting judge in
Amberwood “reflect[ed] the current status of the law in
Ontario”. As a result, the benefit and burden and the conditional grant exceptions were “appropriately part of the
common law in Ontario” (at paras. 99 and 101);
(4) even if the benefit and burden exception did not form part of
the common law in Ontario, the conditional grant exception,
at least, did, and it applied to the facts of this case (at paras.
101 and 104); and
(5) the benefit and burden exception also applied in this case
(at para. 107).
 The appeal judge summarized her conclusions, at paras.
108-109 of her reasons, in this fashion:
[T]he Respondents are bound by the Trust Deed and are obliged to pay
their annual levies for the benefits received. I accept the arguments of the
Appellants that both the conditional grant and the benefit and burden
exceptions apply to the unique facts and circumstances of this case to modify
the general rule that positive covenants do not run with the land.
Alternatively, if only the conditional grant principle applies in Ontario,
I find that it is engaged by the facts of this case, and the Respondents are
obliged to pay the annual levies.
 Accordingly, the appeal judge allowed the appeal, set
aside Deputy Judge Caplan’s judgment dated December 4, 2014,
ordered the appellants to pay the unpaid levies for 2010 to 2013
in the amount of $12,799.81, and granted an unqualified declaration that they are liable to pay the annual levies assessed
against their property in accordance with the trust deed.
 The appellants appeal, with leave, to this court.
 As raised by the appellants, there are several issues