DATE: 20040723

DOCKET: C40231

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

IN THE MATTER of Land Use Permit No. 16-000222, in respect of public lands described as parts of Lots 27 and 28, Concession III, Drayton Township, North of Patara Lake;

AND IN THE MATTER of the expiry of Land Use Permit No. 16-000222;

AND IN THE MATTER of the Public Lands Act 1990, c. P.43, as amended, and regulations thereunder

RE: MINISTER OF NATURAL RESOURCES (Applicant/ Respondent) – and – DONALD MOSHER and LAUREL MOSHER (Respondent/Appellant)

BEFORE: CATZMAN, GILLESE and LANG JJ.A.

COUNSEL: Donald B. Mosher, the appellant, in person Elaine Atkinson, for the respondent

HEARD: July 20, 2004

RELEASED ORALLY: July 20, 2004

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Erwin W. Stach of the Superior Court of Justice dated May 29, 2003.

E N D O R S E M E N T

[1] Mr. Mosher occupied lands pursuant to a land use permit which expired in 1997. In separate proceedings brought subsequent to that expiration, Mr. Mosher claimed an interest in the lands on the basis of part performance of an agreement that he said he had with the Crown. His claim was dismissed, as was his appeal from that dismissal. The Crown then brought this application for vacant possession of the lands.

[2] In hearing the application, Stach J. found that the evidence before him established that Mr. Mosher’s last land use permit expired on August 31, 1997 and that Mr. Mosher had no subsequent authorization to occupy the lands. On these findings, Stach J. was required by s. 24(2) of the Public Lands Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.43 to grant the Crown’s motion for vacant possession. Mr. Mosher appeals that judgment.

[3] He raises various grounds. The alleged discrepancy in the permit number assigned to an earlier permit is not, however, relevant to the merits. Further, the appellant’s complaint that Laurel Mosher is named in the proceedings is not relevant to Donald Mosher’s entitlement to possession. Also, the subsequent issuance of a tax invoice in Mr. Mosher’s name does not establish entitlement to possession. Finally, other allegations that relate to the earlier proceedings about title are not relevant to the Crown’s current claim for vacant possession.

[4] Mr. Mosher’s appeal is dismissed.

[5] Costs are awarded to the respondent in the amount of $350, inclusive of disbursements and G.S.T.

Signed: “M.A. Catzman J.A.” “E.E. Gillese J.A.” “Susan E. Lang J.A.”