Private Property blocking access to public land

The Canadian Press
B.C. high court finds in favour of large landowner in fight over access to lakes

This was an interesting ruling, does it apply Canada wide or is it just a B.C. thing. In this case the rancher was able to block access to public lakes, they were land locked by his ranch. Is it the same here in Ontario?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gun Nut

The Canadian Press
B.C. high court finds in favour of large landowner in fight over access to lakes

This was an interesting ruling, does it apply Canada wide or is it just a B.C. thing. In this case the rancher was able to block access to public lakes, they were land locked by his ranch. Is it the same here in Ontario?

---

Pretty much the same here might even be worse, there are plenty of Tourist camps up north that restrict access to public Lakes and Crown land for portions of the year, while their paying clients enjoy the land and lakes.

I believe it is unless you can access the water body by a/c.
What's even more disturbing about the BC ruling is that the land surrounding the lake is owned by an American. That's rubbing it in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sawbill

I believe it is unless you can access the water body by a/c.
What's even more disturbing about the BC ruling is that the land surrounding the lake is owned by an American. That's rubbing it in.

---

There is a lake not far from my cabin that is pretty much surrounded by two properties owned by americans. There is a small chunk that is crown, however totally inaccessible due to a mountain? Up until one of the properties was sold, folks could always access the lake. The new owner (american) then completely closed off the road and built a big cottage. The "no trespassing" signs were posted and word got out that he was aggressive with anyone caught. Basically from what I've heard he was an arse to the neighbours and did not fit in whatsoever with the locals? Anyway, long story short, the cottage burnt to the ground one winter day. He hasn't rebuilt and for the most part, everything is back to normal as it was prior to him buying the land.

Might find myself in the minority on this, but unless there's some kind of deeded access, I don't have a problem with it.
Just think about the problems land owners have during hunting seasons. I know property owners that have popular streams/rivers in the back 40 who are forever dealing with tress passers, litter and refuse left behind etc. Constantly replacing no tress passing signs, finding guys hunting, etc, etc etc.

I doubt many here would be ok, with a dozen teens deciding to party in their backyards, jump in the pool etc.
:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmoose

There is a lake not far from my cabin that is pretty much surrounded by two properties owned by americans. There is a small chunk that is crown, however totally inaccessible due to a mountain? Up until one of the properties was sold, folks could always access the lake. The new owner (american) then completely closed off the road and built a big cottage. The "no trespassing" signs were posted and word got out that he was aggressive with anyone caught. Basically from what I've heard he was an arse to the neighbours and did not fit in whatsoever with the locals? Anyway, long story short, the cottage burnt to the ground one winter day. He hasn't rebuilt and for the most part, everything is back to normal as it was prior to him buying the land.

---

So.......the guy doesn't want trespassers (liability?) and his cottage is burnt to the ground. Now things are back to "normal"? How is this acceptable? He bought the property. Now he's been bullied into not enjoying it. The type of people who burn down cottages probably deserved whatever caused him to be an "arse" to them in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blasted_saber

The type of people who burn down cottages probably deserved whatever caused him to be an "arse" to them in the first place.

---

I don't think there was an insinuation that the Locals burnt it to the ground....

Private land is private land. If access to public land is through it then tough luck really. Lots of people today have a sense of entitlement that blows me away. That’s why people purchase land, to have privacy/tranquility etc and enjoy it themselves haha. There’s more than one way to skin a cat and there’s work arounds to accessing crown land, most involve two feet and some sweat...

Same goes for outfitters-lodges in the north, they are granted LUP’s to have a remote fishing camp on an isolated lake. When logging allows roads close by it’s not long before people find a way in. If there never was a road and the sole reason for said road is for logging, afterward the road should be destroyed and access restricted. These lodges are trying to make a living and due to logging activities their livelihood is now in jeopardy.

I have zero issue with closing newly made logging roads to public access and is the main reason why I despise the OFAH stance on the issue.
A person must understand that there were never roads before in these areas, closing them is good for wildlife and the environment. The decline of moose/deer/fish numbers in the north definitely has a correlation to access roads that are new and allow a person to atv/drive into areas that were once wilderness and inaccessible. The
intention of these roads are to access lumber and costs associated with building them fall to the logging company and not taxpayers. I have fished/hunted/guided in northern Ontario for the best part of 35yrs and assure you that the days gone by are far better than what we have now and wilderness experiences are changing as we are running out of “true wilderness”.

I have hunted a few states in the western USA. Huge tracts of state owned public land and even the private landowners are keen to allow hunters on their private lands. Atv and off road access is highly restricted/regulated and 99% of areas you need to access with a good set of hiking boots. The experience of being in areas untouched by giant 27” mud swamper tires and snorkel kits is something everyone should experience! Compare it to how we have screwed up our province where a person can’t find a chunk of bush without ruts/garbage/vegetation destruction. Our forefathers would be embarrassed about how lazy we have become and the way we have looked after our crown land in the province.

short rant sorry..but if we continue on the path we are on we as hunters/fishers are going to see more private/public lands off limits. We just can’t be trusted to look after it sadly.

Sounds like the club will be appealing it to the Supreme Court. Interesting to see how that plays out. Whether they hear the case, and if they do how they rule on it.

I'm curious, if a lake is large enough that the surrounding property has a road allowance crossing through and intersecting the lake, wouldn't there be public access via that allowance? I'm not sure how that works with unorganized townships.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dean.f

I'm curious, if a lake is large enough that the surrounding property has a road allowance crossing through and intersecting the lake, wouldn't there be public access via that allowance? I'm not sure how that works with unorganized townships.

---

That's correct. This is a subject near and dear to me. My pet peeve is outfitters who try to trick others into believing they own a lake and use tactics to browbeat and bully others who are accessing the crown areas. Unless the outfitter owns every square inch around the lake,they can never deny access. Even if they do,nothing stops someone from dropping onto the lake from the air or from accessing by water. Smart outfitters know when to keep their yaps shut and not draw attention to themselves. There's lots of business to go around,notwithstanding current Covid 19 restrictions. There's really no reason to be an arsehole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blasted_saber

So.......the guy doesn't want trespassers (liability?) and his cottage is burnt to the ground. Now things are back to "normal"? How is this acceptable? He bought the property. Now he's been bullied into not enjoying it. The type of people who burn down cottages probably deserved whatever caused him to be an "arse" to them in the first place.

---

Not condoning it, but the area up this way is much, much different than the Muskoka's. Unorganised township, somewhat remote and there are a few who live there that won't put up with attitude from outsiders. Make friends and they will be your friend. Treat them like hillbillies and they will be hillbillies in the worst possible way that will make your life miserable?
We're seeing more and more of the southern attitude folks buying up parcels of land and then treating the locals with "attitude". Wrong way to treat your neighbours who were raised being friendly and helpful to all around them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

I don't think there was an insinuation that the Locals burnt it to the ground....

---

Lightning I guess. Or mice chewed the wires

Unless you have an easement or permission to cross private property, your trespassing.
Many people purchase small lots of land surrounded by crown land for the purpose of accessing the crown land.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dean.f

I'm curious, if a lake is large enough that the surrounding property has a road allowance crossing through and intersecting the lake, wouldn't there be public access via that allowance? I'm not sure how that works with unorganized townships.

---

Yep.

I worked for a surveyor for a while. A wealthy guy would often hire us to mark out these road allowances so he would know exactly how to access lakes for fishing

I am on a small lake with access to it via a road allowance, the original deed had 500feet frontage but was lost over the years.

Anyway the entire land base around the Lake is privately owned but at the top is a 50 acre parcel of Crown land that comes within 200 feet of the Lake. The original owner of the Lake and land a nice old WW2 veteran from Toronto always let locals
come onto the Lake to fish and the local's mostly land owners to the north were always pretty respectful and all was good.

Fast forward to today and there is now a well worn ATV road into the lake and the one or two local's who used to store a
couple of 12 foot boats at the top of the lake are now joined by SIX more parked boats. These boats are now left year upon year near the shore, with assorted paddles, fishing line and other garbage. Last year there was a tractor driven down to the
Lake and parked while a couple of guys went fishing.

So the new land owner has let this go even although he complains to me and will not cut off the people either parking or fishing, which is OK with me as I don't own the land.

His son however is younger and a bit more possessive and I can see him eventually cutting off access.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by canadaman30

Unless you have an easement or permission to cross private property, your trespassing.
Many people purchase small lots of land surrounded by crown land for the purpose of accessing the crown land.

---

Back in the old days, the way land was deeded that if you did not work the land, squatter rules would apply. If you built and maintained a road allowance on private property and it wasn't challenged by the owner for something like 10 yrs, it became yours.

I don't think you can do that any more, at least not in Ont.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

Back in the old days, the way land was deeded that if you did not work the land, squatter rules would apply. If you built and maintained a road allowance on private property and it wasn't challenged by the owner for something like 10 yrs, it became yours.

I don't think you can do that any more, at least not in Ont.

---

Things can get really chitty LOL

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local...ouse-concludes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

Back in the old days, the way land was deeded that if you did not work the land, squatter rules would apply. If you built and maintained a road allowance on private property and it wasn't challenged by the owner for something like 10 yrs, it became yours.

I don't think you can do that any more, at least not in Ont.

---

My neighbor to the north was a big chunk of (family) land with about 50 acres smack dab in the middle.
Different siblings owning properties, family dispute ended with access denied.
Buy a chopper fellow was his option

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

That's correct. This is a subject near and dear to me. My pet peeve is outfitters who try to trick others into believing they own a lake and use tactics to browbeat and bully others who are accessing the crown areas. Unless the outfitter owns every square inch around the lake,they can never deny access. Even if they do,nothing stops someone from dropping onto the lake from the air or from accessing by water. Smart outfitters know when to keep their yaps shut and not draw attention to themselves. There's lots of business to go around,notwithstanding current Covid 19 restrictions. There's really no reason to be an arsehole.

---

there are properties that their property line boundaries are actually part of a waterway. its really stupid to think of, and even stupider to try to enforce but it is true. i guess it happens over time as a waterway becomes bigger and tide keeps pushing?

ive come upon a few properties that the boundary lines are actually part of or consisting of part of a lake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

I don't think there was an insinuation that the Locals burnt it to the ground....

---

Of course there was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bowjob

there are properties that their property line boundaries are actually part of a waterway. its really stupid to think of, and even stupider to try to enforce but it is true. i guess it happens over time as a waterway becomes bigger and tide keeps pushing?

ive come upon a few properties that the boundary lines are actually part of or consisting of part of a lake.

---

That's a fact,for sure. I have friends who own a trailer park on Rice Lake who's docks are on flooded lake frontage they still pay taxes on. The government tried to tell them they had to move the docks and issiued a work order that was quickly quashed after they proved they owned the property. The bureaucrat beat a hasty retreat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by biggamer

The intention of these roads are to access lumber and costs associated with building them fall to the logging company and not taxpayers..

---

I just picked up on this tidbit. Sorry to burst your bubble but the Forest Roads Funding Program has been dipping into taxpayers pockets since 2005 and paying 50% of forest road construction. As far as I'm concerned this should give Ontario residents the right to access these roads too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sawbill

I just picked up on this tidbit. Sorry to burst your bubble but the Forest Roads Funding Program has been dipping into taxpayers pockets since 2005 and paying 50% of forest road construction. As far as I'm concerned this should give Ontario residents the right to access these roads too.

---

I often wondered if the Road Access Act prevented all these closing's up north during the Moose season, the very last section seems to be the one relied upon but would it hold up in court as its a "temporary measure" and these road's are closed off every year.

"Temporary closing of forest roads
8 Nothing in this Act prevents the temporary closing of a public forest road or a private forest road within the meaning of the Public Lands Act where, in the opinion of the district manager, an emergency exists. R.S.O. 1990, c. R.34, s. 8

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gun Nut

The Canadian Press
B.C. high court finds in favour of large landowner in fight over access to lakes

This was an interesting ruling, does it apply Canada wide or is it just a B.C. thing. In this case the rancher was able to block access to public lakes, they were land locked by his ranch. Is it the same here in Ontario?

---

Looks like it's headed to the Supreme Court of Canada.
https://www.theweathernetwork.com/ca...kroenke-walton

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

That's a fact,for sure. I have friends who own a trailer park on Rice Lake who's docks are on flooded lake frontage they still pay taxes on. The government tried to tell them they had to move the docks and issiued a work order that was quickly quashed after they proved they owned the property. The bureaucrat beat a hasty retreat.

---

On Frenchmans Bay, on lake Ontario, there is an individual who actually owns the land under the water. You must pay him, to be able put pilings and a dock on the Bay. My B- in L, paid 30 thousand dollars, to own his, 'dock on the bay'. He lives on his boat year round.

Forest workers have the right to refuse to work during hunting seasons as a matter of health and safety not only for them,but,for people using the access roads,especially,when the "pumpkin army" shows up to road hunt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sawbill

I believe it is unless you can access the water body by a/c.
What's even more disturbing about the BC ruling is that the land surrounding the lake is owned by an American. That's rubbing it in.

---

I don't see it this way. Landowner rights belong to landowners - who the landowner is and that fact that he is a billionaire american shouldn't be part of the discussion.

Absolutely W. R. Seems that 'old' landowners do not like 'new' landowners. Especially if they are from the city. ' But , but, what do you mean we can't hunt this land anymore, we have done it forever, we were here first, go back to the city'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

Absolutely W. R. Seems that 'old' landowners do not like 'new' landowners. Especially if they are from the city. ' But , but, what do you mean we can't hunt this land anymore, we have done it forever, we were here first, go back to the city'.

---

For city slickers that do that sort of thing,stuff tends to get real ugly real quick. I've seen enough "lightning" strikes to know over the years. The old adage that more flies get caught with honey than with vinegar really rings true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

For city slickers that do that sort of thing,stuff tends to get real ugly real quick. I've seen enough "lightning" strikes to know over the years. The old adage that more flies get caught with honey than with vinegar really rings true.

---

Some city slickers you don't want to cross the Rubicon with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

Absolutely W. R. Seems that 'old' landowners do not like 'new' landowners. Especially if they are from the city. ' But , but, what do you mean we can't hunt this land anymore, we have done it forever, we were here first, go back to the city'.

---

See post #12

This is an interesting topic.If one owns the land as in the OP case-things look one way ,if one does not own the land,but want access to the lake - looks differently.

Here is a scenario for the Supreme Court(to help shed lights maybe on FAIR solution?)

Owners own the land. Their property- their ownership -their tax money.
BUT-they DO NOT own the lakes.
However-BECAUSE they own all the land around the lakes, and do deny acces -they actually OWN the lakes!

Expropriation comes to my mind.

Indirectly by landlocking the lakes-they bough themselves 2-3 private lakes(for FREE)

Since this should be a Big revenue loss/ownership loss ,and Citizens right taken away to access what is Publicly owned,this should be a big NO-NO.

How to solve this ,and "marry water with fire"?
Property owner's right vs Public rights.

I think they should -Impose a huge RENT/Lease on the landowner, landlocking the lakes.For the sole use of those Public lakes.Huge one........
Unless-the landowner does NOT come up with/agree to a mutually agreeable solution to the problem.

Open a non maintained road allowance-use at your own risk .Fence it off both sides if he is bothered .
OR
Grant road allowance to the Governement(with all responsibilities passed to the Governement)and a 20-30 m strip of the lakeshore ,so ppl can access it and enjoy it.
He can put up a fence-and turn his head away from the "mess"created by the supposed lousy users.

So he could-Stop worrying about the lake ,which is is by the way-NOT HIS.

If we all want to be really precise-those lakes belong to the ppl of BC.Or ppl of Canada.
Not just on the map or on the plot book.

A fella I know has a float plane fishing fly-in service who regularly drops clients into land locked lakes around Bancroft-Barry's Bay area. Land owners tried to stop him,but,got absolutely nowhere. They couldn't get any lawyers to act for them simply because they had NO case. One cottager threatened him by firing a shotgun in the air while buzzing him and his clients with his boat which only succeeded in him getting a weeks vacation as a guest of the province,firearm seized and a criminal record. All navigable water bodies are Crown land and so is the land around the lake 20' ashore of the high water mark (except for flooded farm land as mentioned previously). Even lawsuits were lost by the cottagers along Lake Huron and Georgian Bay years ago affirming Crown authority when some people tried to fence off water front.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmoose

See post #12

---

So wanting to control what happens on your own property is somehow wrong? Or only if it upsets the long time locals ? ......'Sure neighbor, you used to hunt here for generations, but now I own it, and I say you can't.' Does that makes him disrespectful of long time users of his property, and a bad neighbor? Should he worry about, 'lightning'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gbk

This is an interesting topic.If one owns the land as in the OP case-things look one way ,if one does not own the land,but want access to the lake - looks differently.

Here is a scenario for the Supreme Court(to help shed lights maybe on FAIR solution?)

Owners own the land. Their property- their ownership -their tax money.
BUT-they DO NOT own the lakes.
However-BECAUSE they own all the land around the lakes, and do deny acces -they actually OWN the lakes!

Expropriation comes to my mind.

Indirectly by landlocking the lakes-they bough themselves 2-3 private lakes(for FREE)

Since this should be a Big revenue loss/ownership loss ,and Citizens right taken away to access what is Publicly owned,this should be a big NO-NO.

How to solve this ,and "marry water with fire"?
Property owner's right vs Public rights.

I think they should -Impose a huge RENT/Lease on the landowner, landlocking the lakes.For the sole use of those Public lakes.Huge one........
Unless-the landowner does NOT come up with/agree to a mutually agreeable solution to the problem.

Open a non maintained road allowance-use at your own risk .Fence it off both sides if he is bothered .
OR
Grant road allowance to the Governement(with all responsibilities passed to the Governement)and a 20-30 m strip of the lakeshore ,so ppl can access it and enjoy it.
He can put up a fence-and turn his head away from the "mess"created by the supposed lousy users.

So he could-Stop worrying about the lake ,which is is by the way-NOT HIS.

If we all want to be really precise-those lakes belong to the ppl of BC.Or ppl of Canada.
Not just on the map or on the plot book.

---

Some points you are missing, is that you assume the guests coming onto lakes via private land will be reasonable when allowed entry, see my post 16.

The next part your missing is that the owners of the property around the lake are paying big property taxes for lake frontage so nothing is free for the owners.

I think if I were in your position I would be much more offended by tourists camp's up north tying up lakes and all the surrounding Crown land, while paying visiting hunters are enjoying the exclusive use of the properties and its ALL CROWN land.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

A fella I know has a float plane fishing fly-in service who regularly drops clients into land locked lakes around Bancroft-Barry's Bay area. Land owners tried to stop him,but,got absolutely nowhere. They couldn't get any lawyers to act for them simply because they had NO case. One cottager threatened him by firing a shotgun in the air while buzzing him and his clients with his boat which only succeeded in him getting a weeks vacation as a guest of the province,firearm seized and a criminal record. All navigable water bodies are Crown land and so is the land around the lake 20' ashore of the high water mark (except for flooded farm land as mentioned previously). Even lawsuits were lost by the cottagers along Lake Huron and Georgian Bay years ago affirming Crown authority when some people tried to fence off water front.

---

You got to watch landing on those remote lakes, lots of floating logs on the surface that could be a real hazard for float planes landing.

I wonder of you would support a a NO LAKEFRONTAGE tax law considering the owners do not get the exclusive use of the Lake even although they are paying full taxes on it?

T 21. Not true in all cases. I have pointed out that on Frenchmans Bay in Pickering, someone does own the land, under the water. It is not public land. No he does not own the water. Even if you have property fronting the water, you must pay him to be able put in a dock.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

So wanting to control what happens on your own property is somehow wrong? Or only if it upsets the long time locals ? ......'Sure neighbor, you used to hunt here for generations, but now I own it, and I say you can't.' Does that makes him disrespectful of long time users of his property, and a bad neighbor? Should he worry about, 'lightning'?

---

I think the days of "lightning" are pretty much over considering the technology available today to monitor properties in real time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

T 21. Not true in all cases. I have pointed out that on Frenchmans Bay in Pickering, someone does own the land, under the water. It is not public land. No he does not own the water.

---

Yep,aware of that. See my post #22 on flooded farm land. Gilroy,cottagers already pay municipal taxes on their property. The lake has nothing to do with it. What is a NO LAKEFRONTAGE tax law and how would it work?

Sorry T21. I do get your point. I was unaware that Frenchmans Bay was ever 'farmland'. The hunt camp in Port Perry, on Lake Scugog, would be another better example, in that case, they even own the water.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

Sorry T21. I do get your point. I was unaware that Frenchmans Bay was ever 'farmland'. The hunt camp in Port Perry, on Lake Scugog, would be another better example, in that case, they even own the water.

---

I've hunted "The Syndicate" as a guest a couple of times (friends in high places,lol). It's quite the outfit. That's a perfect example of flooded private property before Lake Scugog ever existed. The directors have no problem with fishing on the property during the waterfowl off-season,but,they hire security to boot trespassers when hunting season arrives.

Yup, but they could stop you from fishing if they wished. That property is fantastic for a day of giant carp fishing. Friend of mine lived in Caesarea, we use to make the trip down the lake often.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

Yep,aware of that. See my post #22 on flooded farm land. Gilroy,cottagers already pay municipal taxes on their property. The lake has nothing to do with it. What is a NO LAKEFRONTAGE tax law and how would it work?

---

Clearly you do not seem aware of the fact that waterfront properties and especially lakefront properties pay a premium for being on the water and their tax load is increasing more than most properties as they are more desirable. MPAC takes into consideration if you are on a lake and taxes are higher.

I know in my township without the taxes from Wollaston Lake cottagers, the township would be in big financial trouble. The economic benefits to year round local's from seasonal cottagers is enormous.

https://foca.on.ca/waterfront-proper...c-development/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

Clearly you do not seem aware of the fact that waterfront properties and especially lakefront properties pay a premium for being on the water and their tax load is increasing more than most properties as they are more desirable. MPAC takes into consideration if you are on a lake and taxes are higher.

I know in my township without the taxes from Wollaston Lake cottagers, the township would be in big financial trouble. The economic benefits to year round local's from seasonal cottagers is enormous.

https://foca.on.ca/waterfront-proper...c-development/

---

Premium property pays premium taxes. That's no different than city properties with larger lots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

I've hunted "The Syndicate" as a guest a couple of times (friends in high places,lol). It's quite the outfit. That's a perfect example of flooded private property before Lake Scugog ever existed. The directors have no problem with fishing on the property during the waterfowl off-season,but,they hire security to boot trespassers when hunting season arrives.

---

Not anymore they don't, just got changed before opener last fall. They only own the land under the water. They only can prevent you from anchoring, that's it. You can thank the new Navigable Waters Act for that change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

Premium property pays premium taxes. That's no different than city properties with larger lots.

---

Correct. MPAC does NOT make up the property values, they only assess them based values established thru real estate sales in your area based on similar size lot sizes, bedrooms etc etc. Waterfront property is usually more valuable on the real estate market so they get assessed higher.

Taxes are based on the MPAC assessed property value 'X' the Townships 'mil rate'.

MPAC got my assessed value way wrong a few yrs backs, I launched a challenge and won, reduced my taxes significantly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onelessarrow

Not anymore they don't, just got changed before opener last fall. They only own the land under the water. They only can prevent you from anchoring, that's it. You can thank the new Navigable Waters Act for that change.

---

I wasn't aware the new Act changed that. That will surely wrankle some feathers,won't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onelessarrow

Not anymore they don't, just got changed before opener last fall. They only own the land under the water. They only can prevent you from anchoring, that's it. You can thank the new Navigable Waters Act for that change.

---

lol, how can you own land but not the water thats ontop of it w.t.f LOL

saying that if my property floods i only own the land underneath the water? what if my land turns to a swamp lol do i own the swamp?

what if a body of water forms on your property? do you have the right to at least move the water off your property? so many questions lol

The place in question had canals built to help their flooding. The new act speaks directly to that.

The right to navigate can't be restricted unless approved by transport canada.
So if you have public access to a body of water, you have the right to travel that water way wherever it takes you. If your back forty is flooded and our public access waterway is now connected. It's considered a navigable waterway.
I'm not referring to land locked lakes with no public access.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

Some points you are missing, is that you assume the guests coming onto lakes via private land will be reasonable when allowed entry, see my post 16.

The next part your missing is that the owners of the property around the lake are paying big property taxes for lake frontage so nothing is free for the owners.

I think if I were in your position I would be much more offended by tourists camp's up north tying up lakes and all the surrounding Crown land, while paying visiting hunters are enjoying the exclusive use of the properties and its ALL CROWN land.

---

Being reasonable on a public land is of NO concern of the owner of the property. It is a concern of appointed Governement bodies(Municipality,MNRF ,Police...whatever).
if those "bad"people TRESPASS from the lake onto his property-then he has all the rights to deal with it.
No different then someone would trespass from any other direction onto his property,and make a mess.

The owners of the property DO PAY taxes for THEIR land,and if that happens to be a lake front-Good on them.They still do not own the lake front(from 20 feet from highest water mark).Tough luck.

As far as your 3-rd point is concerned-I am not offended with any of this. Hovewer I think that whoever (outfitter,rich guy or John Doe)owns whatever, same rules apply to all of them related to -limiting use of a Public Property.
I understand -if they build a road for themselves ,on their property-they rule.
Else is -just a nuisance to deal with (part of the package of ownership)-no different them my backyard or your backyard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

Correct. MPAC does NOT make up the property values, they only assess them based values established thru real estate sales in your area based on similar size lot sizes, bedrooms etc etc. Waterfront property is usually more valuable on the real estate market so they get assessed higher.

Taxes are based on the MPAC assessed property value 'X' the Townships 'mil rate'.

MPAC got my assessed value way wrong a few yrs backs, I launched a challenge and won, reduced my taxes significantly.

---

I did that as well almost 20 years back when they over valued my home. They sent a guy out from Brockville and I showed him all the issues with the house and he agreed and they dropped the value of the house significantly and locked it in for 5 years. Saved me a pile of coin.

In Ontario, going forward, the MNRF can no longer sell all the land around a lake... crown land must be reserved for public access as per S.3 of the Public Lands Act.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gbk

The owners of the property DO PAY taxes for THEIR land,and if that happens to be a lake front-Good on them.They still do not own the lake front(from 20 feet from highest water mark).Tough luck.

.

---

I think I understand what you are trying to say but it would be incorrect in many cases. Shoreline road allowance does not exist in all cases. Take my homestead for instance, there's no road allowance along the lake. Our property corner in one spot is under 20 feet of water. There is a unopened concession between us and the neighbors that people use to access the water but that's it.

This whole subject is full of holes. There are 7ndefined areas in Ontario where the general public can not use unopened road allowances for recreational purposes, the problem is that it seems impossible to find where those areas are. South Algonquin is one area I understand this to be true as landowners were having trouble with people setting up treestands on unopened concessions that passed through their property. The issue that arises in this case stems from liability.

Sent from my SM-G973W using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oaknut

I think I understand what you are trying to say but it would be incorrect in many cases. Shoreline road allowance does not exist in all cases. Take my homestead for instance, there's no road allowance along the lake. Our property corner in one spot is under 20 feet of water. There is a unopened concession between us and the neighbors that people use to access the water but that's it.

This whole subject is full of holes. There are 7ndefined areas in Ontario where the general public can not use unopened road allowances for recreational purposes, the problem is that it seems impossible to find where those areas are. South Algonquin is one area I understand this to be true as landowners were having trouble with people setting up treestands on unopened concessions that passed through their property. The issue that arises in this case stems from liability.

Sent from my SM-G973W using Tapatalk

---

What liability? As long as a property owner doesn't create a situation where someone may be injured,The Occupiers Liability Act states quite clearly that people accessing private property without permission (trespassers) assume all consequences. People using unopened road allowances are on their own. Adjacent property owners have nothing to be concerned about because they don't own the easement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

What liability? As long as a property owner doesn't create a situation where someone may be injured,The Occupiers Liability Act states quite clearly that people accessing private property without permission (trespassers) assume all consequences. People using unopened road allowances are on their own. Adjacent property owners have nothing to be concerned about because they don't own the easement.

---

It's not quite that cut and dried in our judicial system, I'm afraid. Say I'm logging on my property and a top falls on the cosession, someone breaks their leg on that top..... a snowmobile traveling down that concession hits a fallen tree that was at one time growing on my property, rider breaks his back, who is at fault. You may say I'm reaching but this is the kind of crap that goes on in this day in age.

Had one situation here about 10 years back where someone drove down a cottage driveway to access a lake to go fishing, the driveway was unplowed. The driver lost control on a steep hill on the driveway and fell off the side totalling his vehicle and he says he can't work due to a back injury. Guess what, the landowner was sued 3 different times and the 3rd time, he ended up paying out because he didn't have guardrail or signage on his driveway. The cottage owner had to sell that cottage and his house was foreclosed upon because of what some drunken POS put him through.

The argument on trespassing is easily defeated as one can't tell where exactly the concession is more times than not. This country gives everything to the people who do wrong.

Sent from my SM-G973W using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onelessarrow

The place in question had canals built to help their flooding. The new act speaks directly to that.

The right to navigate can't be restricted unless approved by transport canada.
So if you have public access to a body of water, you have the right to travel that water way wherever it takes you. If your back forty is flooded and our public access waterway is now connected. It's considered a navigable waterway.
I'm not referring to land locked lakes with no public access.

---

ahh i see my bad lol i didnt read that inital post my mistake

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

So wanting to control what happens on your own property is somehow wrong? Or only if it upsets the long time locals ? ......'Sure neighbor, you used to hunt here for generations, but now I own it, and I say you can't.' Does that makes him disrespectful of long time users of his property, and a bad neighbor? Should he worry about, 'lightning'?

---

The OP is asking about access to lakes across private land, not hunting private land. Try to stay on the topic.

Wondering who foots the bill for lake environmental cleanup if compromised by neglect on the part of the landowner landlocking the lake. Probably the province/pubic taxpayers. Need access somehow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BuckorTwo

Wondering who foots the bill for lake environmental cleanup if compromised by neglect on the part of the landowner landlocking the lake. Probably the province/pubic taxpayers. Need access somehow.

---

Kind of grasping at straws here don't you think?
If cleanup was needed for a landlocked body of water I would guess 99 out of 100 lakes involved would be polluted due to the public having access, not someone dumping on their own property.
John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmoose

The OP is asking about access to lakes across private land, not hunting private land. Try to stay on the topic.

---

Replying to post, #6 AND your post #12. Try to stay on topic, works both ways.

nice....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gbk

Being reasonable on a public land is of NO concern of the owner of the property. It is a concern of appointed Governement bodies(Municipality,MNRF ,Police...whatever).
if those "bad"people TRESPASS from the lake onto his property-then he has all the rights to deal with it.
No different then someone would trespass from any other direction onto his property,and make a mess.

The owners of the property DO PAY taxes for THEIR land,and if that happens to be a lake front-Good on them.They still do not own the lake front(from 20 feet from highest water mark).Tough luck.

As far as your 3-rd point is concerned-I am not offended with any of this. Hovewer I think that whoever (outfitter,rich guy or John Doe)owns whatever, same rules apply to all of them related to -limiting use of a Public Property.
I understand -if they build a road for themselves ,on their property-they rule.
Else is -just a nuisance to deal with (part of the package of ownership)-no different them my backyard or your backyard.

---

I am afraid to tell you in the example I gave there is no "20 feet from the high water mark" the lot has been surveyed and the neighbor owns the frontage all around his property. There is a shore allowance owned by the municipality on the south end of the lake.

IMO, landowners pay the taxes on the land they own, so they should be able to keep others off of it...... With that said, IMO the government needs to allow me and every other citizen access to all bodies of public land/water...................... so if that means to buy out (expropriate) enough of the private land to allow a road allowance, so be it.... This would make everyone happy.... Landowners can still post their private land while the rest of us can enjoy crown property. Seems like a win, win to me....but I am sure there would be plenty of greedy private land owners that would not agree....

I'm a land owner that owns the property right to the waters edge. Fortunately the mnr had the fore sight to set aside easement to the lake so that others could access the water system both summer and winter. On the other side of the coin we have had undesirables come in and leave their trash, take over limits and break into camps. All part of today's society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fratri

IMO, landowners pay the taxes on the land they own, so they should be able to keep others off of it...... With that said, IMO the government needs to allow me and every other citizen access to all bodies of public land/water...................... so if that means to buy out (expropriate) enough of the private land to allow a road allowance, so be it.... This would make everyone happy.... Landowners can still post their private land while the rest of us can enjoy crown property. Seems like a win, win to me....but I am sure there would be plenty of greedy private land owners that would not agree....

---

Sound's like socialism. The only one's being greedy here would be the freeloaders who are not willing to pay their way to obtain the land in a free market economy. Why would anyone want to buy large acreage around a Lake if everybody and their uncle can waltz in, ride around in ski doo's and fish the place out.

C'mon now Gilly, not everyone can afford the luxury of owning waterfront property. There's thousands upon thousands of low income families and their only form of affordable recreation would be to access a lake and enjoy fishing or camping for a day. Most are appreciative of the chance to do so and do respect the local camp owners.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

Sound's like socialism. The only one's being greedy here would be the freeloaders who are not willing to pay their way to obtain the land in a free market economy. Why would anyone want to buy large acreage around a Lake if everybody and their uncle can waltz in, ride around in ski doo's and fish the place out.

---

Why such a nasty comment....It is crownland, we should all be able to use/access it... If the local landowners don't like it, they are free to sale and or move on. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fratri

Why such a nasty comment....It is crownland, we should all be able to use/access it... If the local landowners don't like it, they are free to sale and or move on. :)

---

Because on other threads , many on here have said that those who want stuff for free are socialists. Just a taste of their own medicine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fratri

Why such a nasty comment....It is crownland, we should all be able to use/access it... If the local landowners don't like it, they are free to sale and or move on. :)

---

I find folk's that use Crown land very generous in giving away the privacy of landowners who foot the bill, I think you would have a much different take if you were the landowner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sawbill

C'mon now Gilly, not everyone can afford the luxury of owning waterfront property. There's thousands upon thousands of low income families and their only form of affordable recreation would be to access a lake and enjoy fishing or camping for a day. Most are appreciative of the chance to do so and do respect the local camp owners.

---

With due respect we are not talking about folk's who are respectful its the "other" one's who have no problems forcing in a ATV road, ripping up the land not owned by them. Then they think its OK to store their boats on another man's land for years, some of them not even moving for 3-4 years, probably stolen from some where else?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

I am afraid to tell you in the example I gave there is no "20 feet from the high water mark" the lot has been surveyed and the neighbor owns the frontage all around his property. There is a shore allowance owned by the municipality on the south end of the lake.

---

Any surveyor who doesn't allow for the 20' from the high water mark has made a mistake when surveying a property and needs to be corrected. Surveyor's errors can cause no end of grief as what happened on the Georgian Bay and Lake Huron properties. As i mentioned before,the landowners went to court and lost. Landowners own the property. They do NOT own the lake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

With due respect we are not talking about folk's who are respectful its the "other" one's who have no problems forcing in a ATV road, ripping up the land not owned by them. Then they think its OK to store their boats on another man's land for years, some of them not even moving for 3-4 years, probably stolen from some where else?

---

Not to mention the huge amounts of garbage, people leave behind. We have a similar issue on Lake StClair. Guys cross private land to get to the lake, on foot. They leave lots of garbage behind, then wonder why the landowner limits or cuts off use of his property....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

Any surveyor who doesn't allow for the 20' from the high water mark has made a mistake when surveying a property and needs to be corrected. Surveyor's errors can cause no end of grief as what happened on the Georgian Bay and Lake Huron properties. As i mentioned before,the landowners went to court and lost. Landowners own the property. They do NOT own the lake.

---

This particular lot runs north to south from the south side of the lake across the body of the lake to take in the shoreline on the north side of the lake, so it is a 50 acre parcel. The north half of the parcel has always been marked as Crown land which would give access to the Lake save and except when the survey was run five years ago the owner of the south half confirmed he owned all the lake frontage on the Crown side . There is a shore allowance of 66 feet on the east side of the Lake.