Robert D. Halliday

Two applications were brought to determine the boundary between properties in Lot 16, Concessions 9 and 10 in the Township of Gordon.

The applicant Walker claimed ownership based on mathematical survey lines, while the respondents and the applicant Bainborough argued that an antique fence marked the true boundary.

The court applied the hierarchy of boundary evidence, finding that the historical fence, which had been accepted by previous landowners for decades, was the best evidence of the original boundary.

The court also found that Walker's claim was statute-barred under the Real Property Limitations Act.

Walker's application was dismissed, and the fence was declared the true boundary.

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.

The appellants, owners of waterfront properties on Nottawasaga Bay, appealed a decision of the Coordinator in the Office of the Surveyor General confirming a municipal resurvey under the Surveys Act.

The resurvey extended two road allowances straight across accreted lands to the water's edge, effectively cutting off the appellants' water access.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeals, finding that the Coordinator's decision was unreasonable.

The Court held that the Surveys Act does not displace the common law principles of accretion, which dictate that accreted lands attach to riparian properties and should be equitably allocated.

The matter was remitted for a trial of an issue regarding whether the survey should be confirmed with or without amendments.