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

Apparently the issue of bending the road allowance was not part of the appeal, because no
mention of this concept is made. This Superior Court decision was itself appealed, but the appeal
was dropped following the issuing of the Bataglia decision. Since the decision by Justice
Lauwers was not overturned it and since it is a Superior Court of Justice decision it stands as the
current state of the law.
This decision has significant potential ramifications, because Reg’d. Plan 757 similarly has a
straight-line “high water mark” with a “beach” area identified between the High Water Mark
and water’s edge shown on the plan. Based on this decision, any claim by any of the beachfront
lots within Reg’d. Plan 757 would essentially have no merit. There will be no need to consider
the implications upon any of these subdivision lots since they are bounded by the straight line
frontage of Reg’d. Plan 757.
Since the concept of bending the Road Allowances below the original water’s edge contour was
not challenged by the appeal, or discussed at great length by the Deputy Director, there is no
direction in this matter. However, I believe that we can assume that the entire Boundaries Act
decision has been overturned, meaning that the acceptance for bending the Road Allowance
shown by Deputy Director Cotterill also does not have any standing. Furthermore, although
instructive for general policy, Boundaries Act decisions do not have authority as precedent .
The decision has no clear ramifications for the lots in Reg’d. Plan 779, since that plan does not
show a separately delineated ‘Beach’ or other such area. However, the lots are not riparian,
since the Reservation in the John Goesmann patent retained ownership to 20.12m along the
shore of lot 19, Concession 7.If the lots are not riparian, how can anyone justify extending
across the beach to the easterly limit of the Goesmann Reservation?
Pitt, Andriet and Johnson all support the notion that entitlement to accretion is restricted by the
underlying Township lines. In his submission to the Deputy Director O.L.S. Stewart claims that
Alberta is unique in Canada, in that its Surveys Act gives special status to the ‘township,
sections, quarter sections and legal subdivisions’. In the sections which he mentions I only see a
numbering protocol and the basic technical details of the basic set up and size and direction for
township structure. Elsewhere in this statute, or in other Alberta statutes there may be wording
to give special status to these boundaries, but otherwise I don’t see a big difference between the
Alberta version and ours, because both deal with how lines are to be set.
Page 58 of 66