Private Property blocking access to public land

[gbk]

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.

[smitty55]

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.

[Sam Menard]

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.

[oaknut]

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

[trimmer21]

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.

[oaknut]

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

[Bowjob]

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

[Bushmoose]

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.

[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.

[johnjyb]

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