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

6.3 Case Law Related to Riparian Boundaries
Tabs referred to in the section refer to Volumes 1, 2 and 3 in bound materials entitles
‘Legislation, Case Law and Decisions’ by Izaak deRijcke, Barrister and Solicitor.
6.3.1 Ontario Attorney General)v. Rowntree Beach Association (Tabs 36, 37 and 38)
This case involved a dispute over the ownership of a strip of land lying between the water’s edge
of Nottawasaga Bay and a line designated “line of the wood” between the province and a group
of cottager owners. It involves Lot 18, Concession 11, Township of Tiny.
Based on the wording in the Patent, which reserved “free access for all vessels, boats and
persons”, Justice Flinn ruled that the lot was intended to be riparian. Based on Walker v.
Attorney General, Justice Flinn then determined that riparian properties on navigable waters in
Ontario extend to the water’s edge.
There is a lengthy discussion about the history of surveys in Tiny Township which provide good
background for this survey. The case is also relevant because it rules that all of the broken lots
within Tiny Township are indeed riparian.
This decision, plus numerous other Court decision and Boundaries Act decisions constantly
assert that where lands are riparian (and the onus on is whoever tries to assert that an apparent
water front parcel is actually separated from the water by a clearly worded clause or indication
on a plan of survey), ownership extends to the water’s edge as it exists, unless some catastrophic
instantaneous event has occurred. It means that Lot 19, Lots 18 and 19, Concession 7 and the
two Road Allowances in question extend to the water’s edge of Nottawasaga Bay. In Lot 18,
Concession 7, as mentioned in para. 3.22, there is a 20.12m reservation for road along the shore
within Lot 18, Concession 7.
6.3.2 Paul v. Bates (Tab 7)
In an action between proprietors of adjoining properties on the shore of a bay of the sea, as to
the proportion of the accretion between the properties and the foreshore to which they are
entitled, it was held that this accretion belonged to the owners of the adjoining lands and the
mode in which it should be divided is to take a line representing the line of the shore drawn at
such distance seawards as to clear the sinuosities of the coast and let fall a perpendicular from
the end of the land boundary dividing the properties in dispute. This does not mean a line
representing the whole cost of the bay but a line fairly representing the average line of the shore
extending on either side of the disputed land boundary.
This method has been referred to and upheld by numerous subsequent decisions (court and
Boundaries Act).
Page 37 of 66