Waterfront property owners sought a declaration that their subdivision lots extended to the water’s edge of the Ottawa River despite a strip of land shown between the lots and the shoreline on a 1931 registered plan.
The defendants, successors in title to the original subdividers, claimed ownership of the strip and argued the plan intentionally reserved the land.
The court found a latent ambiguity in the subdivision plan and admitted extrinsic evidence to determine the intention of the original subdividers.
After reviewing historical surveying practices, expert evidence, and surrounding circumstances, the court concluded the rectilinear boundary on the plan represented an approximation of the high-water mark and that the subdividers believed the intervening land was public.
As the Crown patent extended to the water’s edge and there was no intention to reserve the strip, the lots were held to extend to the water’s edge.
