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

6.4.5 Boundaries Act File B-1201 (Fitzgerald and Reycraft) (Tab 23)
This is an application regarding an island and a portion of mainland now attached to the island.
Several issues were involved including whether the provincial or federal government had
jurisdiction to dispose of the land, since there were purportedly conflicting Patents from both
levels of government and how to properly distribute the accreted lands between the island and
mainland. These points are not of relevance to the present situation.
Of particular interest is the reference and approval (at Page 18) of the ruling in Cooper v.
Queen’s County which held that riparian rights are not necessarily permanent if nature changes
the situation. Deputy Director Cotterill quoted and relied on a statement in Cooper which found
that US rulings on the issue of whether a riparian parcel can cease to be riparian are
inconsistent and should not be considered as authoritative.
6.4.6 Boundaries Act File B-1210 (Nicolls) (Tab 24)
This is an application regarding several lots in a subdivision fronting on a horseshoe shaped bay
in Collingwood (the same subdivision as in B-1173). Ron Stewart used a proportional method
for distributing the remaining available waterfront, holding the intersection of a concession line
(established using the Surveys Act) with the water’s edge as a fixed boundary. There had been
two First Registration plans prepared previously which this decision over-ruled.
There is a solid recounting of riparian law at Page 9 from ‘Registration of Title to Land’ by
Victor di Castri. There is also extensive quotations from Legal Aspects of Surveying Water
Boundaries by David Lambden and Izaak de Rijcke. No new law come out, but these may be
better summaries of the law than the trace quotations from the individual cases recorded above.
6.4.7 Boundaries Act File B-1176 (Dies) (Tab 47, Supplementary Survey Documents)
This is an application for confirmation of the boundaries of Lots 78 and 79, Reg’d, Plan 779 in
the subdivision immediately north of the subject area. Ron Stewart O.L.S. has a very thorough
Survey Report and the application was apparently un-contested, since the application was
approved without a hearing or decision. The pre-existing lot corners for the ‘original lot’ were
projected to the inner limit of a 20.12m shore reserve by the Crown Patent. O.L.S. Stewart
contended that no bend was necessary because the perpendicular to the general direction of the
shoreline, as espoused by Paul v. Bates was on nearly the same course as the lot sidelines, so no
bend was required. Reg’d. Plan 779 shows a monumented straight line as the lake side boundary
of the lots, which is labelled “high water mark”, and although not indicated on RP779, he says
there “is and always was” a sand beach between the high water mark and water’s edge, and
because of this, ownership should extend to the limit of the 20.12m reserve, based on Rowntree
and Walker.
Page 52 of 66