In 1878, a township was surveyed in Muskoka. The returns of survey included the surveyor’s
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.
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
1. The boundary between Lots 12 and 13, Concession III, and Lot 12, Concession IV, came into legal existence in 1880, 1881, and 1882 when separate patents were given for these lots. However, the physical existence of the boundary would have been established during the original survey in 1878.
2. Without access to Figure 1 or the complete survey of the Township Plan, it is difficult to give a definitive opinion on the boundary location between Lots 12 and 13, Concession III. However, based on the information provided, it can be assumed that the boundary was properly established during the original survey in 1878 and subsequent patents were issued based on that survey.
3. Based on Figure 3, the part shown does not appear to be part of the client's property (Lot 13, Concession III). The surveying data does not plot out correctly according to the designated boundaries.
4. Since the part shown on Figure 3 does not appear to be part of the client's property, it may affect the ownership of cottage B if it is located within that area. More information is needed regarding the actual boundaries and the location of cottage B in relation to those boundaries to determine the effect on ownership.