OBAH 2016

The applicant sought to confirm the true location of the boundary between his property and the objector's property under the Boundaries Act.

The dispute centered on whether an iron bar found near the street line was in its original position.

The applicant's surveyor concluded the bar had moved and reconstructed the boundary using other evidence, including historical house ties.

The objector's surveyor argued the found bar must be held as an original monument.

The Deputy Director of Titles accepted the applicant's survey, finding that the bar was not in its original position and that the applicant's reconstruction represented the best evidence of the boundary.

The applicants applied under the Boundaries Act to confirm the true location of the boundaries of their recreational property (Lot 7).

The adjoining owners to the west and east objected, relying on conflicting surveys.

The tribunal had to resolve conflicting alignments for the front and rear limits of the tier of lots, and determine the best evidence for the side lines.

Applying the hierarchy of evidence, the tribunal accepted the front and rear limits based on original monuments perpetuated in earlier surveys, rejecting a surveyor's reliance on measurements.

For the east boundary, the tribunal accepted long-standing occupational evidence (a ditch) as relating back to the original survey, taking precedence over proportioned measurements.

The west boundary was established by proportioning between undisputed corners.

The boundaries were confirmed accordingly, and each party was ordered to bear their own costs.