OBAH 2018

The applicant sought to confirm the boundaries of Lot 39, Registered Plan 352 under the Boundaries Act.

The dispute centered on the northeast boundary between Lot 39 and the abutting parcel.

The applicant's surveyor relied on the mathematics of the registered plan, arguing that a found wooden stake was not a sanctioned monument because it was not shown on the plan.

The objectors' surveyors argued that the wooden stake was an original monument set during the original survey prior to the plan's registration.

The Deputy Director of Titles applied the hierarchy of evidence and concluded that the wooden post was an original monument that controlled the boundary location, confirming the boundary as surveyed by the objectors' surveyor.

The applicant sought to confirm the true location of a boundary between two quarter lots under the Boundaries Act.

The applicant's surveyor relied on the remains of an old page wire fence as the best evidence of the original boundary, which was consistent with a 1971 survey.

The objectors argued that the boundary should be determined by the mathematically calculated midline of the concession, which differed from the fence line by approximately 16.39 metres.

The Deputy Director of Titles allowed the application, applying the hierarchy of evidence to conclude that the old fence constituted the best available evidence of the original running of the boundary on the ground, rather than modern mathematical measurements.