Roxana Niculae

The applicant sought confirmation under the Boundaries Act of the true location of the boundaries of a property known as Rossini Park.

The objector, who owned the abutting water lot to the north, disputed the northerly boundary of the park, arguing it should be the limit depicted on Plan 813 rather than the current water's edge.

The applicant claimed the disputed land was the result of natural accretion.

The tribunal found that fill material had been intentionally and substantially deposited both into the water and onto the dry land between 1931 and 1944, which fixed the boundary position at its last known location prior to the filling event.

The tribunal dismissed the application in part, allowed the objection, and confirmed the northerly limit of the park as retraced by the objector's surveyor.

The applicants sought confirmation of the boundary between their property and the objectors' property under the Boundaries Act.

The applicants' surveyors relied on a historic stone row as the best evidence of the original boundary line, which resulted in the boundary cutting through a portion of an existing barn.

The objectors argued for a different boundary line based on a cut line made by a previous owner, which would place the entire barn on their property.

The Deputy Director of Titles accepted the applicants' survey evidence, finding that the stone row was constructed when the original monuments were in place and well known, and thus constituted the best available evidence of the boundary under the hierarchy of evidence rule.

The objection was dismissed and the boundary was confirmed as proposed by the applicants.