Real Estate Law - OBAH

The applicants sought to confirm the boundary between their property and the objector's property under the Boundaries Act.

The objector claimed the boundary was located further north, aligning with an easement.

The objector failed to attend the hearing after multiple adjournments.

The Deputy Director of Titles proceeded in the objector's absence and accepted the applicant's expert surveyor evidence, which retraced the boundary based on historical surveys and original monuments.

The application was allowed, the objection was denied, and the boundary was confirmed as shown on the applicant's draft plan of survey.

The applicants applied under the Boundaries Act to confirm the boundary between their property and the objectors' property based on a mathematical calculation of a forty-acre parcel.

The objectors argued the boundary should follow an old wire fence that had been in place since before the original severance in 1950.

The Deputy Director of Titles dismissed the application and allowed the objection, finding that the old wire fence was an original monument accepted by the parties at the time of the severance.

Applying the hierarchy of evidence, the tribunal held that the fence and its projection to the road allowance represented the best available evidence of the boundary, rather than a theoretical mathematical calculation.

The applicant sought to confirm the boundary between her property and the objector's property under the Boundaries Act.

The dispute centered on the location of 'Point B', with the applicant's surveyor relying on a short standard iron bar (SSIB) planted in 2018, and the objector's surveyor relying on a pipe found in 2016.

Applying the hierarchy of survey evidence, the Deputy Director of Titles found that the SSIB represented the best evidence of the original 'gas pipe' monument established in 1962, as its measurements aligned with historical field notes.

The application was allowed and the boundary proposed by the applicant was confirmed.

The applicant sought confirmation under the Boundaries Act of the true location of the boundaries of a property known as Rossini Park.

The objector, who owned the abutting water lot to the north, disputed the northerly boundary of the park, arguing it should be the limit depicted on Plan 813 rather than the current water's edge.

The applicant claimed the disputed land was the result of natural accretion.

The tribunal found that fill material had been intentionally and substantially deposited both into the water and onto the dry land between 1931 and 1944, which fixed the boundary position at its last known location prior to the filling event.

The tribunal dismissed the application in part, allowed the objection, and confirmed the northerly limit of the park as retraced by the objector's surveyor.

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

The applicant's surveyor relied on the deed distance, while the objector's surveyor relied on an old fence line and garage as evidence of the original boundary.

The Deputy Director of Titles rejected the applicant's survey, applying the hierarchy of evidence to find that the long-standing fence and garage were the best evidence of the original boundary location.

The objection was allowed, and the boundary was confirmed in accordance with the objector's position.

Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.

The applicants sought confirmation of the boundary between their property and the objectors' property under the Boundaries Act.

The applicants' surveyors relied on a historic stone row as the best evidence of the original boundary line, which resulted in the boundary cutting through a portion of an existing barn.

The objectors argued for a different boundary line based on a cut line made by a previous owner, which would place the entire barn on their property.

The Deputy Director of Titles accepted the applicants' survey evidence, finding that the stone row was constructed when the original monuments were in place and well known, and thus constituted the best available evidence of the boundary under the hierarchy of evidence rule.

The objection was dismissed and the boundary was confirmed as proposed by the applicants.

The applicants applied under the Boundaries Act to confirm the boundaries of their waterfront property, specifically the boundary dividing flooded lands between their parcel and the objectors' abutting parcel.

The flooded lands were added to the upland parcels by a 1967 Certificate of Correction.

The applicants' surveyor proposed a boundary based on the location of an existing dock, while the objectors' surveyor proposed extending the existing straight-line boundary.

The Deputy Director of Titles rejected both approaches, finding that the applicants' proposed line was arbitrary and the objectors' proposed line would inequitably cut off the applicants' riparian access.

The Deputy Director confirmed a boundary set radially from the controlled high water mark, providing an equitable division that respected the original shoreline configuration and maintained riparian rights.

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.

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.