©2011 Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia 1 Natural Boundaries Jeff Beddoes, Senior Deputy Surveyor General March 9, 2011

©2011 Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia 2

©2011 Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia 2

©2011 Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia 4

©2010 Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia 6

©2010 Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia 7

©2010 Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia 8

Natural Boundaries are Ambulatory In accordance with common law principles natural boundaries are ambulatory If a parcel of land is bounded by a natural boundary, as the natural boundary moves, so does the edge or limit of ownership (as long as the movement of the natural boundary is slow, imperceptible and natural) ©2011 Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia 9

Ownership is to PNB Regardless of Plan Dimensions ©2010 Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia 10

Ownership is to PNB Regardless of Plan Dimensions ©2010 Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia 11

Common Law Steeped in the history of England  Uncodified rules by which society conducted itself  Direction provided by courts of law Evolved over time to address new societal norms Common law principles may be superseded by statute A parcel having a natural boundary enjoys certain common law riparian rights ©2011 Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia 12

Common Law Riparian Rights Right to armour the natural boundary to prevent erosion Right to “wharf out” Right to access navigable waters from all points along the natural boundary  Redwood Park Motel Limited v. BC Forest Products Limited (1953), 8 WWWR (NS) 241 (BCSC)  Nicholson v. Moran (1950), 1 WWR 118 (BCSC) Ownership of lawful accretion – and the converse, loss of ownership of land that has eroded away slowly and by natural causes ©2011 Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia 13

Ad Medium Filum aquae Ownership of the bed of a non–navigable stream to its middle thread Rotter v. Canadian Exploration Ltd. 30 WWR 446. (1961) SCR Canoe Ontario v. Reed (1989), 69 OR(2d) (Ont HC) There are many non-navigable streams (and some navigable ones too) that are privately owned Section 55 of the Land Act causes some water bodies to be retained by the Crown at the time of (provincial) grant ©2010 Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia 14

©2011 Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia 18

What is Lawful Accretion? Outward growth from the title natural boundary  Re Bulman’s Petition (1966), 56 WWR 225 (BCSC) Slow and imperceptible  Clarke v. City of Edmonton (1929) 4 DLR 1010 (SCC)  AG BC v. Neilson (1956) 5 DLR (2d) 449 SCC Process generally must occur through natural means, and certainly must not be caused by the owner of the property benefiting by the accretion New land must have taken on upland characteristics ©2010 Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia 16

Divvying Up Lawful Accretion Accretion must be apportioned in a fair and equitable manner  Paul v.Bates (1934), (XLV111) BC R 473 Access to navigable water must be maintained (unless all parties are to lose their natural boundary)  Brew Island (1973) 3 WWR 81 (BCSC) ©2010 Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia 17

©2010 Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia 18

Avulsion and Excavation The sudden loss of land through a storm event or the excavation of land does not change the location of the natural boundary ©2010 Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia 19

Bringing Common Law Ownership into the Torrens System Lawful accretion can be brought into the title of the upland property through section 94(1)(c) of the Land Title Act Depiction of an improperly defined natural boundary on the plan upon which title is based can be corrected through section 94(1)(d) of the Land Title Act ©2010 Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia 20

Considerations for Determining Limit of Ownership of Waterfront Property Where is the sea-ward edge of my property and do I own that creek? Root of title – how were the lands first alienated Effect of common law Effect of statute law Physical facts about the water body Each case needs to be considered on its own facts. ©2011 Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia 21

Considerations – Root of Title Provincial Crown Grant The Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway Grant Lands  Easterly 20 miles of Vancouver Island from Goldstream River to Crown Mountain (near Campbell River) Hudson Bay Company Grants  These occurred before the colonies of Vancouver Island and British Columbia existed Federal Alienation (Dominion Patent or Federal Instrument of Grant)  Date of alienation  Navigability of water body Certain Railway Grants  Intentionally included parts of the beds of navigable lakes ©2011 Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia 22

©2011 Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia 23 Crown Grant Tracing

©2009 Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia 24 Crown Grant Tracing

Federal Township Plan ©2010 Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia 25

Considerations – Statute Law What is the effect on ownership of the body of water from all the registered (LTO) plans since alienation of the parcel from the Crown? Is the subject land affected by:  Railway Belt Water Act, 1912 (federal statute)  Section 108 of the Land Title Act  Section 94 of the Land Title Act  Section 56 of the Land Act  Section 58 of the Land Act ©2011 Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia 26

©2011 Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia 27 BC’s Land Title and Survey System

Thank you Jeff Beddoes, BCLS, CLS Surveyor General Division Land Title and Survey Authority of BC ©2011 Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia 28