View topic - Article - Bed of Navigable Waters Act (Ontario)

It is currently September 23rd, 2019, 4:27 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: June 16th, 2016, 8:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: April 30th, 2014, 10:30 pm
Posts: 49
Came across this interesting article on a failed attempt to apply the Bed of Navigable Waters Act to a creek running through a property.

http://www.durhamregion.com/news-story/6726798-creek-not-navigable-waterway-court-rules/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: June 16th, 2016, 10:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: June 23rd, 2006, 4:25 pm
Posts: 3011
Location: Milton
Interesting article, but I think the big line in this one was the last one.

Quote:
The court also noted the navigable waters act was never intended as a way to subvert planning laws.


Since the "rules" were never set in stone by the cons on their updated version there is a lot of grey areas.

The quote is a pretty strong piece of wording which no doubt have some strong implications for towns.

Jeff

PS yes we are still waiting for the Libs to get onside and start hearings for new rules.

_________________
Choosing to save a river is more often an act of passion than of careful calculation. You make the choice because the river has touched your life in an intimate and irreversible way, because you are unwilling to accept its loss. — (David Bolling, Ho


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: June 16th, 2016, 10:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: April 30th, 2014, 10:30 pm
Posts: 49
I don't pretend to understand the difference but I think there is a distinction between federal navigation law (i.e Navigation Protection Act - formerly Navigable Waters Protection Act before it was gutted by the Cons) and Provincial / Ontario law (i.e. Bed of Navigable Waters Act). Does the news article confuse things by referencing both? Or do they both apply in this case?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: June 17th, 2016, 12:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: June 23rd, 2006, 4:25 pm
Posts: 3011
Location: Milton
Quote:
Does the news article confuse things by referencing both?


Just a tad.

And there is just a tiny number of locations where the river bed was given to the landowner.
One being the Credit in Norval.

Since this case came to the courts since the cons changed the legislation it is hard to say.

You have to think that the people trying to have this done were really grasping at straws.
I would like to see a picture of the creek where this was taking place.

Me thinks their greed to separate the property and sell it showed through in the courts.
And that is why the ruling that they can't subvert the planning laws was mentioned. I am sure that statement would have been used during the trial.

I have seen similar cases where owners wanted to split up their properties but they usually won by showing where the town and regional governments let someone else do something similar.

But if it is a tiny creek the landowners have opened up their own can of worms by declaring the Creek navigable in court.

And for us paddlers that is a very good issue we can use in our favour.
:thumbup:
Jeff

_________________
Choosing to save a river is more often an act of passion than of careful calculation. You make the choice because the river has touched your life in an intimate and irreversible way, because you are unwilling to accept its loss. — (David Bolling, Ho


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group