Source: https://vdocuments.us/re-establishing-boundaries-ambiguities-and-riparian-rights-re-establishing.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 18:02:27+00:00

Document:
1. Do surveyors define boundaries? No boundaries are defined by those (individuals, corporations, Crown) who enjoy legal rights in land. However, surveyors do play an integral role in demarcating boundaries on the ground and in delineating boundaries on plans.2 2. What causes boundary disputes? Boundary disputes are caused by territoriality or by enmity. Territoriality the desire to retain land emerges as the clamour for resources escalates.3 Enmity dislike between neighbours is a less predictable cause. The dislike is fought out on the boundary, allowing one party the hateful privilege of vexing their neighbours4 and injecting an element of hostility in the litigation.5 3. What if a boundary has been neither defined nor demarcated? No parcel exists and there is no boundary to dispute: The plaintiff must make up his mind and set out in his pleadings exactly what declaration he seeks.6 4. How are parcel descriptions to be interpreted? The purpose of interpreting a description is to determine the intention of the parties - the grantor and grantee. If there is no ambiguity (uncertainty) then the principles to be used are similar to those used in interpreting statutes the words are to be construed in their ordinary, grammatical sense and any errors or omissions are not to be inferred.
1 Monty Pythons Flying Circus. Season 2, Episode 11. December 8, 1969. 2 South Australia v. Victoria,  AC 283 (PC). 3 Yukon Gold v. Boyle Concessions, 1917 CarswellBC 144 (SCC). 4 Blundell v. Caterall (1821), 106 ER 1190. 5 Warford v. Zyweck, 2002 CarswellBC 952 (BCCA). 6 Tsilhqotin Nation v British Columbia, 2007 BCSC 1700.
7 AG v. Drummond (1842), 1 Dr & War 353, at 368 (Ireland) 8 McPherson v. Cameron (1868), 7 NSR 208 (NSCA); Hawkes Estate v Silver Campsites Ltd. (1991), 55 BCLR(2d) 145 (BCCA). 9 Herbst v. Seaboyer (1994), 137 NSR (2d) 5. 10 Humphreys v. Pollock,  4 DLR 721 (SCC). 11 Brady v. Sadler (1890), 17 OAR 365 (Ont CA).
12 Re Rissers Beach (1975), 2 NSR 92d) 479. 13 Nicholson v. Halliday, 2005 CanLII 259 (Ont CA); citing Kingston v. Highland (1919), 47 NBR 324. 14 Grasset v. Carter (1884), 10 SCR 105 (SCC). 15 Thompson v.Fraser Cos.,  SCR 109 16 Briggs v. McBride, (1879) NBR 202 (NB CA).
17 Lewis Carroll. Through the looking-glass. 1872. 18 The Canada United States boundary was incorrectly demarcated in 1860 and was not accepted. The boundary that was demarcated in 1861 was accepted: International Boundary Commission. Re-establishment of the boundary between Canada and the United States. Ottawa. p. 213. 1937. 19 Richmond Hill Furriers v Clarissa Developments (1996), 7 RPR (3d) 54 (Ont Div Ct). 20 Kristiansen v. Silverson,  4 DLR 252 (Sask CA). 21 Okanagan Radio Ltd. v. Registrar of Land Titles, 1996 CanLII 2954 (BC SC). 22 Cain v. Copeland,  67 DLR 581 (Sask CA).
- grant an easement if compensation is paid; - vest title if compensation is paid; - order the encroachment to be removed.
23 Les Soeurs de Misericorde v. Tellier,  3 DLR 715 (Man CA). 24 Robertson v. Wallace, 2000 ABQB 1020 (Alta QB). 25 Flello v. Baird, 1999 BCCA 244. 26 Warford v. Zyweck, 2002 CarswellBC 952 (BCCA). 27 Ferguson v.Lepine, 1982 CarswellBC 334 (BCCA); Svenson v. Hokhold, 1993 CarswellBC 978 (BCCA); Dattolo v. Merlo, 1998 CarswellBC 1406 (BCSC); Wheeler v. Piggford, 1998 CarswellBC 1174 (BCSC); Lalli v. Eng, 2000 CarswellBC 956 (BCSC).
28 Stevie Ray Vaughan. Dont stop by the creek, son. From: Solos, sessions and encores. 2007. 29 Harris v. Hartwell, 1992 CanLII 1273 (BCSC). 30 La Forest. Water law of the future. Canadian Bar Review. v51. p.307. 1973. Harvey. Riparian water rights: Not dead yet. The Advocate. v48 - n4. p.517. July 1990 31 Meyer v. McLennan, 2005 CanLII 39858 (Ont CA). 32 Hextall v. Burns (1911), 38 WWR 422 (Alta SC).
- the land in question is lawfully accreted land, or - the water boundary is the natural boundary.
33 In reaction to: Canadian Exploration v. Rotter,  SCR 15. 34 Miller v. British Columbia (Attorney General),  1 SCR 556. 35 Merritt v. City of Toronto (1912), 27 OLR 1 (Ont CA). 36 R v. Nikal,  5 WWR 305 (SCC); R v. Lewis,  5 WWR 348 (SCC). 37 Flewelling v. Johnson (1921), 59 DLR 419 (Alta CA).
35. What is the relationship between the bank of a river and the natural boundary?
38 District of North Saanich v. Murray,  1 WWR 179 (BCSC). 39 Nicholson v Moran,  1 WWR 118 (BC); Corkum v Nash (1990), 71 DLR 391 (NS). 40 Clarke v. City of Edmonton,  4 DLR 1010 (SCC), referring both to Hindson v Ashby  1 Ch 78 and to Howard v. Ingersoll (1851), 13 Howard (US) 381. 41 Flewelling v. Johnson (1921), 59 DLR 419 (Alta CA). 42 Plumb v. McGannon, (1871), 32 UCQB 8. 43 AG New Brunswick v. Town of Newcastle,  1 DLR 47 (NBSC). 44 Scarboro Golf & Country Club v. City of Scarborough (1986), 28 DLR (4th) 321 (Ont SC).
38. What is the distinction between accretion and erosion? If the criteria are met and the water boundary moves out, then accretion has occurred and the parcel increases in area. If the criteria are met and the water boundary moves in, then erosion has occurred and the parcel decreases in area. 39. How is accretion apportioned? If two or more parcels have accreted land, then new side (common) boundaries must be established across the accretion. The Courts have referred to two methods: Perpendicular from baseline - On the plan, draw a line representing the line of the shore drawn at such distance seawards as to clear the sinuosity of the coast, and let fall a perpendicular from the end of the land boundary.50 The baseline should represent the average line of the shore.
45 AG Ontario v. Walker,  1 SCR 78 (SCC). 46 Merriman v. New Brunswick (1974), 45 DLR (3d) 464 (NBCA). 47 AG BC v Neilson,  5 DLR (2d) 449 (SCC); Re: Bulmans Petition (1966), 56 WWR 225 (BCSC). 48 Southern Centre of Theosophy v. State of South Australia,  1 All ER 283 (PC). 49 Clarke v. City of Edmonton,  SCR 137, at 144 (SCC). 50 Paul v. Bates (1934), 48 BCR 473 (BCSC).
Proportional shorelines - Equity is served, if each parcel receives the same proportion of new water boundary as it had old water boundary.51 40. Are the side boundaries merely projected?
51 Re Brew Island,  3 WWR 81 (BCSC). 52 Nastajus v. Registrar, North Alberta (1989), 64 Alta LR(2d) 300 (Alta CA). 53 Pitt v. City of Red Deer, 2000 ABCA 281 (Alta CA). 54 Johnson et al v. Alberta, 2005 ABCA 10 (Alta CA). 55 Eliason v. Registrar (Alberta),  6 WWR 361 (Alta QB). 56 Municipality of Queens County v. Cooper,  SCR 584 (SCC).
57 Robertson v. Wallace, 2000 ABQB 1020 (Alta QB). 58 Yukon Gold v. Boyle Concessions Ltd,  3 WWR 145, at 147 (SCC). 59 Re: Monashee Enterprises and Minister of Recreation BC (1981), 124 DLR (3d) 372 (BCCA). 60 Volcanic Oil and Gas Co. v. Chaplin (1914), 31 OLR 364 (Ont CA). 61 King Island Clay Ltd. V Upton, 1995 CanLII 3438 (BCCA). 62 Nelson v. Pacific Great Eastern Ry Co,  1 WWR 597, at 601 (BCSC). 63 Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway Company,  WWR 356 (PC).
Recognizing the strength of the opinion of the expert retained by the other party, and thus persuading your client of the folly of proceeding to trial.
64 Frank Zappa. Cosmik Debris. From: Apostrophe. 1974. 65 Yukon Gold Co. v. Boyle Concessions Ltd., 1917 CarswellBC 144 (SCC). 66 Lavina Lanty claimed the right to drive on the beach in front of her cottage. She lost. The court ordered that she pay the other party $133,800; she also incurred the costs of her lawyer and her expert surveyor: Lanty v. Ontario (MNR), 2006 CanLII 1452 (Ont SC). 67 R v. Douglas et al, 2004 BCPC 279. James Morton. Lets ditch the battle of experts in court, and just get the facts. Edmonton Journal. February 8, 2008. 68 Johnson et al v. Alberta, 2001 ABQB 642, paras. 37 & 38. Affirmed 2005 ABCA 10. 69 Anderson. Clear and partial danger: Defending ourselves against the threat of expert bias. The Canadian Bar Review. v.83 n.2. pp. 285-308. September 2004.
70 Do not be tempted to divert the trial with surveying issues that may have presented problems more apparent than real: McLeay v Kelowna (City), 2003 BCCA 523. 71 If not prepared, the expert risks misleading the court: Regina v. Truong & Ung, 2000 BCPC 0143. 72 Gibbs v. Grand Bend (Village) (1995), 26 OR(3d) 644 (Ont CA). 73 Collingham v. Algonquin (Township), 2007 CanLII 1321 (Ont SC); Lanty v. Ontario (MNR), 2006 CanLII 1452 (Ont SC); Johnson v. Alberta, 2001 ABQB 642 (Alta QB); Robertson v. Wallace, 2000 ABQB 1021. 74 First Canadian Title v. Law Society of New Brunswick, 2007 NBQB (October 2007).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.