The appellant appealed a decision of the Deputy Director of Titles regarding a boundary dispute between neighbouring lakefront properties.
The issue was whether the metes and bounds description in the registered deed and plan of subdivision, which contained a mathematical error, or an original wooden surveyor's stake should govern the boundary line.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that while a registered description generally governs, where it demonstrably fails to express the grantor's true intention, original surveyors' monuments take precedence.
The court affirmed the application of the hierarchy of boundary evidence and section 9 of the Surveys Act.
