Report of Research, Field Investigation and Survey of Robert D ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

3.2 (Tab 4) 1891 Municipal Survey 572 This plan surveyed the Road Allowance between Concessions 6 and 7 across Lots 9 through 19, but little monumentation is indicated, although I assume that restoring the survey monuments would have been the primary purpose for the survey. No evidence or explanation is indicated on the plan either, although it was approved by the Director of Surveys so I can only assume that proper methods were followed. Between Lots 9 and 13, the line is almost exactly perpendicular to the indicated direction of the Base Line. The distance is 155.1 chains, which doesn’t seem consistent with the original field notes (150 chains for the lots, plus 1 chain for the Road Allowance as I read the field notes). Across Lots 14 through 18 there is a bend of a little over 2 degrees, although the basis for this bend is not apparent. The distance for Lot 19 is slightly long, while the distance across Lots 14 through 18 is identical to the distance across Lots 9 through 13, so I am led to believe that the edge of Georgian Bay was used to control the distances and all intervening corners were set by proportion in accordance with the Surveys Act. The Report and Field Notes also give very little indication of the method actually used to set these corners, and no indication in the vicinity of Lots 18 and 19. The location of the centre-line of the Base Line Road Allowance was still marked by original blazes and P.L.S Galliver took an affidavit from a local person for the location of the centre-line of the Road Allowance between Concession 6 and 7 based on a line of blazes he had seen while cutting timber. Galliver also found an original blaze on a beech tree in Lot 11. Other than this, no record can be found to document the reasons for how the rest of the Road Allowance was set, nor why the distances were set as they were. P.L.S. Galliver indicates on the field notes that he set ‘Field Stone’ monuments for the S.E. corner of Lot 9, Concession 7 and for the N.E. corner of Lot 9, Concession 6. Cedar posts were set for the four corners at the intersection of the Road Allowance between Concession 6 and 7 with the Road Allowance between Lots 18 and 19. He doesn’t indicate that he set any monuments for the westerly boundary (simply shown as ‘Georgian Bay’), where it is intersected by the subject Road Allowance. Page 8 of 66
3.3 (Tab 8) Reg’d. Plan 757 This plan shows undescribed survey monuments for the NE and NW corners of Lot 19, Concession 6, but no indication of what was planted, or what it was based on. Twenty-one lots were laid out adjacent to the ‘Beach’, with a straight line approximating the ‘High Water Mark’. There is a clear indication of a strip of land lying between the lots and the water’s edge of Nottawasaga Bay. Also, the ‘Beach’ is not coloured, whereas the lots and subdivision road are. However, in a number of Boundaries Act decisions this has not been considered as conclusive evidence of an intention to retain separate ownership of the land between the lots and the water’s edge. This will be discussed in greater detail at Paragraph 6.4.8 under a review of the relevant Boundaries Act decisions. I requested copies of the original field notes from Chester Stanton, O.L.S., but he was not able to locate them. 3.4 (Tab 9) Reg’d. Plan 779 This plan shows an undescribed survey monument for the SW corners of Lot 18, Concession 7, but no indication of what was planted, or what it was based on. Ninety-six lots were laid out adjacent to the ‘Beach’, with a straight line approximating the ‘High Water mark’. Unlike Reg’d. Plan 779 , there is no strip of land indicated between the lots and the water’s edge of Nottawasaga Bay, but from all available information, this line is seldom if ever at the water’s edge. Although not shown on the plan, there is a 1 chain (20.12m) reservation for Road Allowance adjacent to Nottawasga Bay by the Crown Patent. The implications of both of these fact situations will be discussed in greater detail at Paragraph 6.4.7 under a review of the relevant Boundaries Act decisions. I requested copies of the original field notes from Chester Stanton, O.L.S., but he was not able to locate them. 3.5 (Tab 35) Survey of Shoreline by O.L.S. Bowman This plan details a very comprehensive survey of the shoreline and adjacent lands across Concessions 1 through 12 and contains a wealth of historic data. Great emphasis has been placed on elevations, and O.L.S. Bowman left benchmarks at numerous locations across the project area. He has also recorded information about buildings on the adjoining lands, landowners and some dimensional information for his traverse and its relationship to some survey monuments he shows. He also records the location of the water’s edge (at elevation 176.25), high water mark (at elevation177.64) and location for top of sand ridge/edge of bush (varying elevations). At the end of the Road Allowance between Concessions 6 and 7 O.L.S. Bowman shows a ‘Frame Shelter - four posts and roof - value of $5.00. Page 9 of 66
Page 1 and 2: Report of Research, Field Investiga
Page 3 and 4: SURVEY REPORT File: 13-7508 Ontario
Page 5 and 6: • Plan and Field Notes of Survey
Page 7 and 8: • Surveyor’s Real Property Repo
Page 9: 3) Plan Review: 3.1 (Tabs 1, 2 and
Page 13 and 14: Of relevance to the present survey
Page 15 and 16: 3.16 (Tab 26) Plan 51R-35907 This i
Page 17 and 18: 3.24 (Tab 34) Field Notes by D.W. L
Page 19 and 20: 4) Title Search Review I obtained c
Page 21 and 22: 4.5 Lots in Reg’d. Plan 779 (see
Page 23 and 24: 4.9 Abstract for Lot 8, Reg’d. Pl
Page 25 and 26: 5.2 Site Description The subject ar
Page 27 and 28: 5.4 Field Procedures All field meas
Page 29 and 30: I also reviewed several of the plan
Page 31 and 32: 5.6 Centre-line Profile of Road All
Page 33 and 34: 6) Law Review 6.1 Relevant Statute
Page 35 and 36: 1. If intended in the original surv
Page 37 and 38: 6.2 Case Law Related to Surveys und
Page 39 and 40: 6.3 Case Law Related to Riparian Bo
Page 41 and 42: 6.3.4 Re: Brew Island (Tab 10) Mere
Page 43 and 44: 6.3.6 Red Deer v. Pitt (Tabs 12 and
Page 45 and 46: ascertained. Given this result, I n
Page 47 and 48: The trial judge observed that the l
Page 49 and 50: [60] This court finds that the desc
Page 51 and 52: 6.3.11 Clarke v. Canada (Tabs 28 an
Page 53 and 54: The Application was dismissed becau
Page 55 and 56: The use of this rationale is then c
Page 57 and 58: His response follows: C Extinguishm
Page 59 and 60: At Para 34 Justice Lauwers continue
Page 61 and 62:
6.4.9 Boundaries Act File B-1232 (E
Page 63 and 64:
6.5.2 Draft Memorandum to Council o
Page 65 and 66:
Values are given monthly, and for p
Page 67:
Based on the Ellard case, the lot o
show all

Report of Research, Field Investigation and Survey of Robert D ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?