Cameron Hoos

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to permit a dock walkway and an existing hot tub within the required setbacks on a waterfront property.

The parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, as the structures were unobtrusive, maintained the shoreline character, and did not adversely impact the natural environment or neighbouring properties.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The applicants applied under the Boundaries Act to confirm the boundaries of their waterfront property, specifically the boundary dividing flooded lands between their parcel and the objectors' abutting parcel.

The flooded lands were added to the upland parcels by a 1967 Certificate of Correction.

The applicants' surveyor proposed a boundary based on the location of an existing dock, while the objectors' surveyor proposed extending the existing straight-line boundary.

The Deputy Director of Titles rejected both approaches, finding that the applicants' proposed line was arbitrary and the objectors' proposed line would inequitably cut off the applicants' riparian access.

The Deputy Director confirmed a boundary set radially from the controlled high water mark, providing an equitable division that respected the original shoreline configuration and maintained riparian rights.