In 1878, a township was surveyed in Muskoka. The returns of survey included the surveyor’s

Question

drawing of the Township Plan, a small portion of which appears at Figure 1. Separate patents
were given for Lots 12 and 13, Concession III, and Lot 12, Concession IV, in 1880, 1881 and 1882
respectively, and all subsequent dealings with title were under the Land Titles Act.
In 1968, a surveyor was asked to prepare a survey for the owner at that time of Lot 13,
Concession III. Part of that survey appears at Figure 2.
Today, you are the surveyor who is asked to survey the West Half of Lot 13, Concession III. In
doing so, you are told that the owner of Lot 13, Concession III, was able to get a severance
approved, but that application for severance was not based on any survey work. When your
field crew returns from the initial survey of the site and the data is downloaded, it plots out as
shown in Figure 3. None of the figures are to scale.
3
Figure 1 — Rudimentary sketch of Part of 1878 of the Township Survey Plan
1. When did the boundary between Lots 12 and 13, Concession III, and Lot 12, Concession IV,
come into legal existence? When did it come into physical existence?
2. What is your opinion of the boundary location between Lots 12 and 13, Concession III? Why?
3. Is the part shown on Figure 3 part of your client’s property? Why? Or why not?
4. Based on your answer in 2 above, what does this do to the ownership of cottage B? What
more information do you need to answer this question

Answer 1

1. The boundary between Lots 12 and 13, Concession III, and Lot 12, Concession IV, came into legal existence in 1880, 1881, and 1882 respectively, when separate patents were given for these lots. It came into physical existence when the township was surveyed in 1878.

2. Without more information and accurate measurements, it is difficult to give a definitive opinion on the boundary location between Lots 12 and 13, Concession III. However, based on the available information and the sketch in Figure 1, it appears that the boundary may not be accurately depicted. A more detailed survey is necessary to determine the exact boundary location.

3. Based on the data downloaded and the layout shown in Figure 3, it seems that the part shown on Figure 3 is not part of the client's property. The boundary lines do not align with the expected location based on the previous survey and the available information.

4. Based on the information given, it is unclear what impact this has on the ownership of cottage B. More information is needed to determine the exact boundary location and ownership rights. Additional surveys and legal documentation may be necessary to clarify the ownership of cottage B and its relationship to the client's property.