Higgs v. Gennings [1988] O.J. No. 771,64 O.R. (2d) 573

By MacDonald D.C.J.
District Court of Ontario
Jun 14, 1988

 

Planning -- Subdivision control -- Title- Violation -- Whether boundaries registered under the Boundaries Act confer title.  A  new  plan registered under the Boundaries Act would not supersede a registered plan of subdivision. Objection to title held. To supersede an existing plan of subdivision, it would be necessary to register a new plan of subdivision in appropriate form after following the proper procedures under the Land Titles Act. In such case,  the previous plan would be deregistered in some form. Here no such steps have been taken. There will be an order to go that the objection to title set out in the application has been satisfactorily answered.

Real property -- Boundaries -- Construction -- Plan superimposed on other plan to correct boundaries does not supersede old plan but boundaries only --Boundaries Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 47, ss. 3(1), 15(1), 16(3).


The vendors owned certain lands abutting five adjacent lots on an old compiled plan which, not having been deregistered, was a plan of subdivisionunder the Planning Act, 1983, S.O. 1983, c. 1. Later, a plan of subdivision was superimposed on the lands under the Boundaries Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 47, to correct boundaries in the area. The new plan included all the vendors' lands in one lot. The vendors then agreed to sell the five lots on the old planwhile retaining the abutting land. The purchasers requisitioned a consent to sever, but the vendors alleged compliance with the Planning Act, 1983 since they were conveying lots in accordance with a registered plan of subdivision. The purchasers brought a vendor and purchaser application.
Held, the requisition had been answered satisfactorily.
Although s. 16(3) of the Boundaries Act provides that a plan registered under that section supersedes all corresponding portions of former registeredplans, the purpose of the Act, as is apparent from ss. 3(1) and 15(1), is to confirm boundaries. Hence, what it does is to supersede boundaries and not entire plans, unless it is made clear that that is the intention and the plan is properly registered as a plan of subdivision under the applicable recording statute.


VENDOR and purchaser application.

Statutes referred to Boundaries Act, R.S.O. 1960, c. 38, s. 16 Boundaries Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 47, ss. 3(1), 15(1), 16(3) Land Titles Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 230 Planning Act, 1983, S.O. 1983, c. 1 Vendors and Purchasers Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 520

R. Kajan, for applicant. 

S. Latinovich, for respondent.

MACDONALD D.C.J. (orally):-- This is an application under the Vendors and Purchasers Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 520, as amended, in respect of a requisition that, on or before closing, there be production and registration on title of a consent to severance under the provisions of the Planning Act, 1983, S.O. 1983, c. 1, in respect of certain lands.
The issue is whether the requisition has been satisfactorily answered by the following answer:
"The lands described as 'Secondly' in instrument #LT-4605 in 1976, (Lagodich to Belanger) were known as Part 1, Plan 59R- 1751. These same lands were also five full lots on a plan of subdivision, namely lots 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 on Plan 21, and accordingly no consent under the Planning Act is necessary."
In 1914, Plan 21, being a compiled plan, was registered by the Township of Thorold on lands including the parcel in question. This plan shows the parcel as comprising five whole lots, numbered 14 to 18. The plan was not deregistered when the Planning Act, 1983 came into effect, or subsequently, and would be a plan of subdivision under that Act. In 1969, Plan M-9 was superimposed on the lands under the Boundaries Act, R.S.O. 1960, c. 38.Plan M-9 shows a large lot 15 which includes lots 14 to 18 on Plan 21 as well as certain adjacent properties.
In 1976, the owners of the property shown as lot 15 on Plan M-9 purported to transfer the portion of that lot shown as lots 14 to 18 on Plan 21 away from the balance of the property. The lots to be transferred were at that time identified as being Part 1 on a further plan registered as Reference Plan 59R-1751. No consent under the Planning Act, 1983 was obtained on this initial transfer on the ground that the conveyance was one of whole registered lots on a registered plan of subdivision.
The question to be determined now is whether s. 16 of the Boundaries Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 47, operates to cause Plan M-9 to supersede the original Plan21. Subsection 16(3) states:

16(3) A plan registered under this section supersedes all corresponding portions of all former registered plans and descriptions.

Section 3 of the Boundaries Act provides for applications for confirmation of boundaries. Subsection 3(1) states:

3(1) Where doubt exists as to the true location on the ground of any boundary of a parcel, an application, in the prescribed form, may be made to the Director to confirm the true location of the boundary on the ground.

On Plan M-9, a deputy director of titles certified that he

... did on the 23rd day of December 1969, pursuant to Section 12 of the Boundaries Act, confirm the true location on the ground of the Boundariesof each of the properties identified on this plan; the said Boundaries being shown in heavy, solid outline hereon.

The portion outlined is the large lot 15 and, within the outline, the small lots 14 to 18 are shown as such and identified as being lots on "Registered PlanNo. 21".
I am of opinion that the intent of the Boundaries Act is to provide a procedure whereby doubt as to the boundaries of parcels of land may be removed. It confirms boundaries. Unless there is a discrepancy between the boundaries as given in the new plan and those set out in the underlying plan, it changes nothing. Even where there are discrepancies between plans, looking at the Boundaries Act and the Planning Act, 1983, together, it seems to me that, inthe absence of a clear intent to supersede one plan by another, what would be superseded would be the legal descriptions of the boundaries rather than the plan itself. Accordingly, I read s. 16(3) in this narrow context. I find support for this view in s. 15(1) of the Boundaries Act which overrides other Acts but only to the extent of what constitutes the true boundaries of a parcel. Section 15(1) provides:

15(1) The boundaries confirmed and certified by the Director and defined by the monuments shown on the plan under this Act shall, notwithstanding any other Act, be deemed to be the true boundaries of the parcel.

To conclude, in my view, a plan registered under the Boundaries Act would not supersede a registered plan of subdivision for all purposes unless it is made clear that the earlier plan is superseded in its entirety and the appropriate steps under the Land Titles Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 230, or other relevant legislation have been taken. To supersede an existing plan of subdivision, I should think it would be necessary to register a new plan of subdivision inappropriate form after following the proper procedures under the Land Titles Act. In such case, presumably the previous plan would be deregistered insome form. Here no such steps have been taken.
There will be an order to go that the objection to title set out in the application has been satisfactorily answered by the answer quoted above.
Judgment accordingly.