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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The two parcels referred to above (Fraser and Caston) were not created by Reg’d. Plan 757, but predate the subdivision. Caston was created in 1921 and originally consisted of the entire 91.44 x 106.68m parcel, By ‘B&S’ 11132 from Henry Madill. In Sept. 1925 by Grant 12539, Caston sold the northerly 15.24m (50') to Charles Fraser. It is hard to say why the original parcel was shown differently on Reg’d. Plan 757, but there were no transfers from Caston or Fraser to the developers (Parnell, Parnell and Clute) to support the notion that the parcel originally acquired by Caston had changed. Assuming that ‘Water Line’ shown on Reg’d Plan 757 is accurate, the NW corner of the original Caston parcel would fall into Nottawasaga Bay, but the parcel would capture much of the area shown as beach on Reg’d. Plan 757. Inst 13555 (dated April 4, 1930) was a Quit Claim from Ernest Madill (former owner of Lot 19) to Parnell, Parnell and Clute to the land within Reg’d. Plan 757 as well as to the land between the High Water Mark and the Water’s Edge of Georgian Bay. This document pre-dates the registration of the subdivision by slightly more than one month and indicates an understanding by the developers that they owned the land to the west of the High Water Mark and that it had intentionally been excluded from the subdivision lots. Mr. Madill no longer owned the Caston or Fraser lands, so the Quit Claim could have no effect on them. Subsequently, Tiny Beaches Road (Lot 22, Reg’d. Plan 757) was extended northerly from the northerly end of the subdivision to intersect the Road Allowance between Lots 18 and 19. A portion of Lot 19 lying north of the subdivision and east of Tiny Beaches Road was surveyed as Part 1, Plan RD-390 and conveyed. The remaining portion of the Caston land was re-configured into 4 15.24m lots, plus a remainder at the north end of Lot 19, which was surveyed as Part 1, Plan 51R-4292. The land designated as Part 1 on Plan 51R-4292 is held under PIN 58392-0086, and is owned by Acorn Lodge Ltd.. Plan is 51R-36555 is deposited on title, and document RO134683, which is a By-law imposing subdivision control under Section 26(6) of the Planning Act (RSO1960) is also registered. I believe that the land now shown as Parts 1 and 2, Plan 51R-36555 should properly extend as far west as the westerly boundary of the Caston parcel but no further. The land west of the Caston parcel remains part of the ‘Beach’ area on Reg’d. Plan 757. 4.4 Lot 19, Concession 7 (see Tab 58 for PIN and Crown Patent) Lot 19, Concession 7 is held under PIN 58394-0091 and is owned by Romspen Investment Corporation. The same subdivision control By-law by RO134683 is registered on title. A foreclosure Judgement is also registered by SC801598. Page 18 of 66
4.5 Lots in Reg’d. Plan 779 (see Tab 59 for Abstract, PINs and Instruments) The question of extent of lands included within these subdivisions could become an issue so the original plans needed to be examined. In other legal proceedings within Tiny Township this has been an area of interest. The original mounted plans are not readily available on the floor of the Registry Office, but a Clerk willingly went to the storage area and retrieved them for me. There is no shading on the copy of Reg’d. Plan 779 I obtained from Teraview, which is also a ‘Certified True Copy’. This is consistent with the original which I viewed at the Land Registry Office. As best I could I also compared my copy with the original, and I could not see any discrepancies. According to Reg’d. Plan 779, Lots 1 through 4 abut the Road Allowance between Lots 18 and 19. The remaining lots are shown with a straight-line westerly boundary and with Nottawasaga Bay as the adjoining entity. Since there is a possibility that we will be extending the Road Allowance to the water’s edge I also searched title for the lots which could potentially be impacted. Lots 1 and 2 are held under PIN 58394-0085, and are owned by Arthur Resse Dunsford and Rosalyn Diane Dunsford. The subdivision control By-law (RO134683 is registered against title. Lot 3 and the southerly 9.14m (30') of Lot 4 (as described by RO847755) are held under PIN 58394-0084, and are owned by Terry Gordon Church and Lora Ann Klatt. The subdivision control By-law (RO134683 is registered against title. Lot 5 and the northerly 6.10m (20') of lot 4 are held under PIN 58394-0083, and are owned by Danu Mandlsohn, Samuel Paul Mandlsohn, Mark Mandlsohn and Anne Mandlsohn. The subdivision control By-law (RO134683 is registered against title. Lot 6 is held under PIN 58394-0082, and is owned by William Millet Salter, Nancy Claire Salter, Gregory Millet Salter and Lindsay Jane Salter-Craig. The subdivision control By-law (RO134683 is registered against title. 4.6 Reg’d. Plan 757 The scanned copy of Reg’d. Plan 757 I obtained is stamped as a ‘certified true copy’ and signed by J.A. Small, Dep. Registrar on May 15, 1972. However, given technology of the day, it is a black and white copy. Lots 1 through 42 (including Lot 22, which is now the road) are shaded gray, while the are labeled ‘Beach is non-shaded. Page 19 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 and 10: 3) Plan Review: 3.1 (Tabs 1, 2 and
Page 11 and 12: 3.3 (Tab 8) Reg’d. Plan 757 This
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: 4) Title Search Review I obtained c
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

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?