|
Real Property - Boundaries. Bazar v. Bruce Trail Conservancy
In Bazar v. Bruce Trail Conservancy (Ont CA, 2025) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal, here brought against "an order for adverse possession in relation to a triangle of land consisting of 1.6 acres. The land abuts a farm property owned by the appellant, Bruce Trail Conservancy.".
Here the court illustrates the sometimes legal art of land boundary determination:[7] Finally, the appellant argues that the application judge erred in her demarcation of the boundary separating the disputed area from the surrounding farmland. The suitability of a line of demarcation will depend on the particular facts of the case. Here, there was no fence surrounding the disputed area, but a line of trees, planted years earlier by the Slak family, served as a functional equivalent. We see no error in the application judge’s conclusion that the trees stood as a “clear, physical demarcation” and would signal to third parties that the property beyond the trees belonged to the occupiers of that land.
[8] As for the particulars, the application judge found that the “clearest boundary line” was a “straight diagonal line” that “roughly” followed the path of the deciduous trees. She attached, as Schedule “A” to her decision, a visual representation of the boundary, based on a sketch the appellant had used for real estate purposes. Given her verbal description and visual depiction of the boundary, there could be little doubt over where property was to be divided. . Weaver v. Anderson
In Weaver v. Anderson (Ont CA, 2017) the Court of Appeal comments on the basis upon which property boundaries may be established:[6] Third, the appellant contends that the application judge failed to apply proper legal principles in establishing the boundary. We see no basis for this complaint. The application judge identified the leading cases of Thelland v. Golden Haulage Ltd., [1989] O.J. No. 2303 (Dist. Ct.), and Nicholson v. Halliday (2005), 2005 CanLII 259 (ON CA), 74 O.R. (3d) 81 (C.A). He applied the principles expressed in those cases that in the absence of natural boundaries or original monuments, “fences or possession that can reasonably be related back to the time of the original survey” are more compelling evidence of the boundary than measurements.
[7] There was, therefore, both an evidentiary basis and a legal basis for the application judge’s rejection of the “White line” and his acceptance of the fence line as the more reliable evidence of the boundary.
|
