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

For the Road Allowance between Lots 18 and 19, our “last ascertainable points” are 100m on
the easterly side of the Road Allowance and 120m on the westerly side from the water’s edge. A
new SIB was set on the easterly boundary opposite the found monument on the westerly side to
maintain a true 20.12m width. The measured bearing for the last course is N32 degrees 21
minutes 30 seconds W (UTM grid) on both sides of the Road Allowance. I cannot find any “proof
line” shown on either the plan or the field notes, and this is further confirmed by D.W.
Lambden’s ‘Report on Road Reservations in Tiny Township (Para. A.4) (see para. 6.5.2 of this
report). The Surveys Act instructs (Section 28 (1)) that side lines are to be set on the same
astronomic course as for the boundary at the end of the concession from which the lots are
numbered. The east boundary of the Township is shown on the original plan as having a bearing
of N 30 degrees W: this is the only controlling bearing for the sidelines I can find anywhere on
the plan. Converting this presumed magnetic bearing to astronomic gives a bearing of N30
degrees 32 minutes W, and after applying convergence, we get N31 degrees 15 minutes W (UTM
grid).
This then leaves the question of whether we should follow the ‘local’ custom and produce the
existing alignment, or follow the Surveys Act method and set bearings as calculated above. Since
I contend that we need to follow the Surveys Act method rather than the common law procedure
of setting a line perpendicular to the general direction of the shoreline (see section 6.3.2, 6.4.4
and 6.4.8 below), then I believe that we need to do so rigorously, and the two Road Allowance
boundaries were set in strict accordance with the Surveys Act.
6.1.3 Re-establishment of Lost Township Corners
We find the following instructions regarding the Minister’s powers in Section 24 of the Surveys
Act (RSO 1990):
2) “A surveyor in re-establishing a lost corner or obliterated boundary in a double front
township shall obtain the best evidence available respecting the corner or boundary, but if the
corner or boundary cannot be re-established in its original position from such evidence, he shall
proceed as follows:
1) “If the lost corner is a corner of the township, he shall report the circumstances to the
Minister who shall instruct him how to proceed.”
Although I have never found myself is a situation where this was considered necessary, I
understand from surveyors who have that the process involves providing a sketch and a summary
of the situation along with a proposed resolution to the Surveyor General who reviews and
approves the proposed method (or presumably amends the method if considered necessary). The
power of the Minister (Surveyor General) as expressed seems to be absolute, with not even any
mention of opportunity to appeal. As such, I believe that an argument can be made that this same
authority is carried throughout the Act, wherever the Minister or designated representative is
involved.
Page 34 of 66