Stream/river access rules?

kodiakjack said:
Well the definition seems clear enough to me, but the applicability not so much.


akwgo9.jpg
Click to expand...

Water scrubbed rocks? Change in vegetation? Were the water actually is now? In this example it's not even relevant as the shoreline is altered and the minute that happens it is fixed to the time of its last natural position.

Rule of thumb is that the limit between the crown watercourse and the private riparian land owner is the water's edge and that limit is ambulatory. But even that is a really hard thing to figure out with swamps, floating patches of bull rushes and ownership around controlled lakes that is set to a specific elevation regardless of where the water is.
 
Bubba Yugga said:
So what happens if you have to drag your canoe over a beaver dam?
Is that part of the private property / river bed?
Does that make that creek non navigable in law?
Click to expand...

It was the Canadian Guard in Sarnia I had to contact to get the creek which flowed through my property in Huntsville declared a navigable water way. That made my acreage technically a water front lot which meant I could get a building permit. During that process I asked if beaver dams would prevent it from being a navigable water way. The reply was no as any body of water that can be navigated by a canoe is considered navigable, and going over obstacles such as beaver dams and fallen logs with a canoe is normal. Therefore it remains navigable.
It may sound crazy but that is what I went through to get a building permit. One piece of governmental piece of paper after the other until it was all legally done. And the local building officials in Huntsville were sticklers for going by the book and law.
 
kodiakjack said:
Interesting. So, as the property owner in that situation, would you make a point of having words with anyone wading up the creek?

It would seem to me, (if I were such a property owner) that there is no greater threat to my property or security whether stream users were floating up or wading up. I think regardless of what my lease said about the creek bottom, I’d just ignore it and treat it like public access. If there’s enough water to float a canoe, I’d rather people be free to step out and pull it past rocks and roots, etc. without taking additional risks staying in the boat cuz they’re scared of getting dinged for trespassing if the touch the bottom.
Click to expand...

We never bothered a soul for trespassing on our property whether it be on the creek bottom or else where unless it was deer or moose season and we had fellas in the bush. As we all new where each other were and folks wondering through could end up in some ones line of fire. That's the only circumstance we were strict on. And even then we would invite them in to camp for a beer to keep peace and harmony in the land. Never had a issue with folks when you explained and treated them nice.

The only reason I mentioned all this is when I signed the papers for the land at the lawyers office it was brought to our attention about the creek bottom and folks being able to stop along the shore. The crown (government) also had the rights to "all " pine trees. the lawyer explained that this was a throw back from the hay days of logging and was specifically aimed at white pine although it did not specifically say white pine. There was very little marketable white pine left in the area so it was a virtual non issue, but an interesting one.
 
Last edited:
Evanguy said:
Nova scotia is the same way as long as its a water course, you can follow it and fish it. The only way to have private water is a lake with no streems in or out and you own the land all the way around it.

If you were not fishing you may not be allowed too though. Our laws are based on legal fishing. Not hiking, walking or hunting.

Altthough with a boat you would be good to go
Click to expand...

That is not correct.

(2) No person may be prosecuted for contravening any notice given pursuant to this Act prohibiting entry or prohibiting activity on forest land if that person is hunting as defined in the Wildlife Act, fishing, picnicking, camping, hiking, skiing or engaged in another recreational activity or engaged in a study of flora or fauna. R.S., c. 363, s. 15.
Click to expand...

https://nslegislature.ca/sites/default/files/legc/statutes/protect.htm
 
Suther said:
Interesting topic. I wonder if anyone has a legalese example for BC?
Click to expand...

Not legalese, but from owning land on waterfront and having it surveyed, I learned interesting details. When the lot was developed the high water mark became the natural boundary and survey pins were driven. Now years later, the water level is higher, my corner pegs/property line on that existing boundary remains unchanged so I own up to and into the water, unlike other properties developed later where your beach is not even private.

In my search of other properties, I found ones with private lakes and streams, where not only did you own the land under the water, the title had covenants stating you also had mineral and water rights below ground.

So in BC, you have to really look at the details.
 
As Brian mentioned: Our waterfront is 11M above the average between high and low water (lake front). So a moving target. Rivers and streams are public domain as is all lake frontage. A ruling in 1972 (I think) was when this was established. Also in 1972 it was legislated that no new waterfront property would be offered for sale. By 1991 people in BC had been offered the option of buying their leased waterfront lots. If a lot was already surveyed prior to 72 you could make application to buy even if it was unoccupied. Makes for an interesting title search as in the past logging companies would sometimes purchase land to log it. BC government will not sell property that is considered an island.

As a heads up: people who are interested in BC land there may be some new stuff coming on the market as reconciliation settlements include transfer of fee simple property to various bands. For e.g. there are 12 parcels on Babine Lake of which three are to be sold off to sponsor development of the other nine. Probably won't be quite so generous down south as the property is not so freely available. In the 25 miles between Smithers Landing and Fort Babine there are only about 20 cabins. So not really crowded.
 
the sock said:
The Carp river, where it passes through Kanata (Ottawa) is classified as a navigable waterway, even though that ducks, standing in it in the summer, barely get their ankles wet.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, the mighty carp river that almost prevented thhe construction of the Paladium/Corel Center/Scotia Bank Place/Canadian Tire Center.
 
Brian46 said:
Not legalese, but from owning land on waterfront and having it surveyed, I learned interesting details. When the lot was developed the high water mark became the natural boundary and survey pins were driven. Now years later, the water level is higher, my corner pegs/property line on that existing boundary remains unchanged so I own up to and into the water, unlike other properties developed later where your beach is not even private.

In my search of other properties, I found ones with private lakes and streams, where not only did you own the land under the water, the title had covenants stating you also had mineral and water rights below ground.

So in BC, you have to really look at the details.
Click to expand...

Very much the case. Though I would suggest that that is the case pretty much everywhere. Many of the survey markings pre-date BC's entry into Confederation. in some of these cases the surveyors who laid out the lots simply extended the lot lines out in to the watercourse, and snapped a straight line from point to point, rather than following the high water mark, as became the norm later.
The property I live on is one such.
There are lots of Named creeks and marked watercourses on the maps that either have never actually had running water in them, or have never had more water than you could walk through without over-topping your sneakers. And many of the larger watercourses, I would pay good money to see certain folks put into a canoe, and set loose in, even IF it would be the waste of a pretty good canoe! :)

We are blessed in BC, with more accessible Crown Land and water bodies, than most of the rest of Canada, so it usually isn't that much of an issue.
But, as was stated earlier, generally people are dinks. Probably, more to the point, the people that end up butting heads with the Land's Owners, must seem to be... Special... Had fair few dealings with those myself.
 
High water mark is meaningless in cases where a property was registered a land title with permanent boundaries before those regulations existed. I currently own a property where this is the case, it is in BC, but as others have said, it seems to be an issue across canada

Just like there are building regulations in regards to riparian areas, no such riparian area or regulations existed when my property was developed, so the shore was excavated all the way into the lake, weed barrier and retaining wall installed before sand was brought in to make a beach.

Other lots in my area have grass and brush down to the lakeshore and can't clear it for a beach, where I have no riparian area as it was all removed decades ago.
 
Last edited:
bogusiii said:
Water scrubbed rocks? Change in vegetation? Were the water actually is now? In this example it's not even relevant as the shoreline is altered and the minute that happens it is fixed to the time of its last natural position.

Rule of thumb is that the limit between the crown watercourse and the private riparian land owner is the water's edge and that limit is ambulatory. But even that is a really hard thing to figure out with swamps, floating patches of bull rushes and ownership around controlled lakes that is set to a specific elevation regardless of where the water is.
Click to expand...
Ontario defines it as,
"high water mark" means the mark on the shore of a lake where the presence and action of water is so continuous as to leave a distinct mark either by erosion, destruction of terrestrial vegetation or other easily recognizable characteristic."



https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.n...es/pdf/Water-bounds-monograph-English-web.pdf
 
There was a Supreme Court case about this many years ago, the decision was that those travelling the navigatable water could camp for the night, gather firewood, etc on private land above the high water mark. Basically the common law rule of neccessity, after all, camping below the high water mark might not be the best idea.

I have no idea if statute has superceded common law since.
 
Not sure how a court can rule that it is basically ok to trespass on someones land. On top of that allow them to gather firewood etc..... Might as well have said cut down some more trees and build a cabin, stay for a while, etc.

I could see in the case of an emergency in the middle of nowhere a court may rule that way, but not in towns with fenced properties, private waterfront, etc.

Under what circumstances was a case like this brought before the courts I wonder......
 
RRH.01 said:
Ontario defines it as,
"high water mark" means the mark on the shore of a lake where the presence and action of water is so continuous as to leave a distinct mark either by erosion, destruction of terrestrial vegetation or other easily recognizable characteristic."



https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.n...es/pdf/Water-bounds-monograph-English-web.pdf
Click to expand...

No, that is one interpretation, and speaks to a physical mark independent of ownership, and the courts have dozens more. Regardless, the term 'high water mark' for determining legal boundaries, even if used, isn't always correct. I could be, but that would depend on circumstances and the wording/intent of the deed or grant. It is more typical that 'high water mark' in a deed is really the 'normal water's edge' so even if you applied that gc.ca (why a federal site?) definition you'd miss the boundary.
 
I understand the Supreme Court in the us just upheld a decision about beach access on the Great Lakes, affirming that all beaches on the Great Lakes are public, and landowners can’t impede access by running fences etc. down to the water to section off “their own” beach.
 
now when beavers build a dam and flood an area where is the high water mark? and if the beaver dam 'washes out' where is the high water mark :)

I've actually had this conversation on a project :)
 
kodiakjack said:
I understand the Supreme Court in the us just upheld a decision about beach access on the Great Lakes, affirming that all beaches on the Great Lakes are public, and landowners can’t impede access by running fences etc. down to the water to section off “their own” beach.
Click to expand...

So the supreme court ruling is in effect a land grab if you own a property with its registered land title boundaries below the current water line? I can't see this ruling holding up in court if challenged. The government would have to expropriate the waterfront from the landowners on the lakes if they wanted it to be public land.

Edit, I see you said us, so it would be immanent domain.
 
bogusiii said:
No, that is one interpretation, and speaks to a physical mark independent of ownership, and the courts have dozens more. Regardless, the term 'high water mark' for determining legal boundaries, even if used, isn't always correct. I could be, but that would depend on circumstances and the wording/intent of the deed or grant. It is more typical that 'high water mark' in a deed is really the 'normal water's edge' so even if you applied that gc.ca (why a federal site?) definition you'd miss the boundary.
Click to expand...
I see, it was the second use of that definition i came across, the OLA uses it aswell in bill 103,
https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-40/session-1/bill-103
Some good old Canadian convolution by jeeesus
 
MiG25 said:
There was a Supreme Court case about this many years ago, the decision was that those travelling the navigatable water could camp for the night, gather firewood, etc on private land above the high water mark. Basically the common law rule of neccessity, after all, camping below the high water mark might not be the best idea.

I have no idea if statute has superceded common law since.
Click to expand...

Something of similar wording to this was written into a property deed I had. here in Ont. It was worded in such a way that it was for heat and shelter emergency purposes only. Not for recreational purposes.

We were on canoe trip several years back and crossing a large lake, a sudden storm came up we landed on the shore of a private trailer park. The owner ordered us off the land, said he would call the police and have us charged if we did not leave. I stated we were declaring an emergency due to extreme weather conditions it was unsafe for us to leave by water, and by law he had to let us stay on his shore line until the storm abated. One of members dug out a cell phone and offered to call the police for him. He declined and stomped off. We left some time later when the storm passed. He new he was being an a$$hole and in the wrong, at least here in Ont.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom