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

ascertained. Given this result, I need not determine which boundaries of the Plaintiffs’ lands in
question are surveyed and which are unsurveyed. This would only have to be determined if I had
found that a surveyed boundary limits accretion but an unsurveyed boundary does not. Since I
am of the view that it makes no difference whether a boundary has been surveyed or not in
determining the limits of the accretions to the Plaintiffs’ lands, I will now turn to setting out my
conclusions.
[43] It is my finding in the trial of the issues before me that the accretions to the Plaintiffs’ lands
are limited by the theoretical or legal section, quarter-section or legal subdivision lines within
the relevant townships. Further, I find that the fact that a parcel of land has been surveyed or not
surveyed does not invalidate a Certificate of Title. Therefore, the relevant lines (referred to
above) are those boundaries of the lands described in the Plaintiffs’ Certificates of Title.
On appeal, the ruling by Justice Phillips was up-held. The appellant tried to distinguish Pitt, or
to have it ignored, but the Court ruled that the circumstances were indistinguishable.
At appeal, Clarke v. Canada and Chuckry v. Manitoba were distinguished because one boundary
was a natural boundary. In our situation, and this is the entire basis of the disagreement, the
boundary where the accretion has attached is the natural boundary. In Clarke the accretion had
only attached to a portion of the riparian boundary, and how the sidelines effected this was not
an issue (see 6.3.11); in Chuckry the issue was entirely related to right to compensation of
accreted land, and the question of sidelines crossing the accretion did not come up (see 6.3.12).
6.3.8 Andriet v. Strathcona No. 20 (Tabs 16 and 17)
This is another case involving accretion as well as adverse possession on a prairie lake (Cooking
Lake) which has receded over time. This not a clearly reasoned and explained decision so I don’t
see a lot of value.
[56] The Andriets in their factum state with reference to the Johnson and Pitt cases:
These cases resolve the potential conflict between the certainty of title given by the Torrens
system, which allows a purchaser to rely completely on the document at the Land Titles Office
and the potential uncertainty introduced to that system by the haphazard addition of land to an
owner’s title by the common law doctrine of accretion.
The solution is really quite elegant. The solution is essentially to say that a given title registered
at the Land Titles Office has two types of boundaries. There are fixed immovable boundaries
usually having reference to sections, township, legal subdivision lines, quarter section lines and
then there are moveable boundaries, which are usually spoken of in relation to lakes and rivers.
The solution is that the moveable boundaries cannot pass over the immovable boundaries. This
gives effect to the doctrine of accretion but still limits it to the maximum bounds provided for in
the titles registered at the Land Titles Office. So, in Johnson it was found that accretion could
not add lands outside the South West Quarter of Section 26 where the title said that the lands
owned by the owner were contained within the South West Quarter of Section 26.
Page 43 of 66