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

6.3.6 Red Deer v. Pitt (Tabs 12 and 13)
This was an application for official recognition of ownership of accretion which had attached to
the applicant’s land. At Para 19, Justice Wilson quotes Justice Milvain from Boychuk et al v. Her
Majesty and Jarvie et al “I find and declare the doctrine of accretion can in no event extend the
ownership of the Plaintiff’s land described in Certificate of Title 110 C223 beyond the
boundaries of South West Quarter of Section 13, Township 9, Range 22, West of the 4 th
Meridian.”
Pitt appealed to the Alberta Court of Appeal, but his appeal was dismissed. Justice McClung,
speaking for the Court sais at Para 1: “We see the issue here as: Does alluvial accretion
inevitably extend the ownership of land beyond the original boundaries set forth in the
Certificate of Title?”
He summarized Pitt’s ownership at Para 2: “Clearly the boundaries of Mr. Pitt’s land
originated in the 1886 survey and culminated in the 1966 title which he received. The disputed
accretion lies wholly within the N.W. of 18, while Mr. Pitt has title to the N.E. of 13-38-W4th.”
“His finding at Para 3 is: “It seems clear to us that the change of the physical boundaries of the
watercourse cannot create an expanded title overriding the boundaries of the title he received. In
saying so, we respectfully adopt Mr. Justice Wilson’s reasoning and the remedy he chose,
although we emphasize that the presence of the road allowance here forecloses ownership by the
City of Red Deer or Mr. Pitt. The disputed land is orphan and hence belongs, as Mr. Chapman
concedes, to the Crown.’
It would seem that we can use this decision to infer that a claim to accretion cannot extend over
an artificial boundary by an original township survey? (ie - the right to accretion ends at the
artificial boundary, whether already surveyed or proposed to be done according to a method
under the provincial Surveys Act).
6.3.7 Johnson et al. v. Alberta (Tabs 14 and 15)
This was an application for official recognition of ownership of accretion which had attached to
the applicants’ land. Under ‘Findings’, Justice Phillips ruled:
[39] ‘For the following reasons, I find that accretions to the Plaintiff’s lands are limited by the
theoretical or legal section, quarter-section or legal subdivision lines within the relevant
townships:
1. Section 91 of the Land Titles Act states that land described in a certificate of title consists only
of the actual area within its legal boundaries and no more or less.
Page 41 of 66