This appeal concerned a dispute over a shared boundary between lakefront cottage properties and the location of a dock.
The trial judge found the boundary to be ambulatory, extending to the water's edge, and that the land under the dock was adversely possessed, but the dock could not impede riparian rights.
The Court of Appeal dismissed both the main appeal, which challenged the boundary determination and the application of accretion/avulsion principles, and the cross-appeal, which challenged the adverse possession finding.
The court found no reversible error in the trial judge's determination of the boundary based on grantor's intent and upheld the adverse possession finding, noting it was supported by evidence.