with similar facts, but look at the results
Ellard http://canlii.ca/t/fs15v
Lackner http://canlii.ca/t/fs4nj
Cheers,
Derek
Interesting cases. I don't deal with waterfront very often (live in a desert). There are two opposite determinations but the facts are a bit different. Both cases rule on what they believe was the original intent of the developers. So I think the court got both cases correct. The difference was the first case had a second tier of lots that needed the beach to be public for them to be able to use it. The second case didn't have that factor although there was access strips for maybe the public to get to the water.
Thanks for posting!
Utah still has an unresolved issue on who owns the bed of the Colorado River. A case determined that part of the river could be navigable and parts couldn't. Left it up to the parties to negotiate the end result. Anybody that thinks the State of Utah, the Feds and a bunch of private landowners are going to "negotiate" what part of the river is navigable and which is not is dreaming.
LR-
The two cases were so close in time thus 'newish' judicial thoughts were put to the grindstone.
I've sent a note to one of the parties in the Lackner case to see his take.
We have the 'normal' water's edge decision in Walker http://canlii.ca/t/1twx7
and the Bed of Navigable Waters Act http://www.search.e-laws.gov.on.ca/en/isysquery/ecaabb81-fcd3-42e9-a521-f0a815f7198e/1/doc/?search=browseStatutes&context=#hit1
The Act was passed in 1911 to deal with the rights of private interests to dam water power sites.
I would imagine that humanity has dealt with water 'availability' in your "geoarea" much more exclusively.
Cheers,
Derek