Comments on: Andriet v. County of Strathcona No. 20: Court of Appeal Conjures a Creative Accretion Approach http://ablawg.ca/2008/03/26/andriet-v-county-of-strathcona-no-20-court-of-appeal-conjures-a-creative-accretion-approach/ Thu, 17 May 2012 17:43:16 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Lynn Forsythe http://ablawg.ca/2008/03/26/andriet-v-county-of-strathcona-no-20-court-of-appeal-conjures-a-creative-accretion-approach/#comment-43574 Lynn Forsythe Sat, 17 Jan 2009 03:37:21 +0000 http://ablawg.ca/2008/03/26/andriet-v-county-of-strathcona-no-20-court-of-appeal-conjures-a-creative-accretion-approach/#comment-43574 My name is Lynn Forsythe and I was one of the parties sued in the Andriet versus the County of Strathcona et al. First of all I would like to correct you - it was Andriet v. the County of Strathcona and all the other people who lived around Grandview Bay. We felt that Judge Parras's decision was not ideal, but better than the outcome of the appeal. If he hadn't had a stroke and had just his preliminary notes used, perhaps his reasoning would have been more clear. All of us that were sued were okay with the lake bed 's "land" going back to the province except for Andriet. However, we were in a unique situation where the Province owned it and leased to the County of Strathcona and they maintained it for the good of the community and the residence directly abutting the lake bed. However, if we didn't respond to the appeal there was a potential of us losing completely. This area had been used by the community for years as it backed on to the Community Hall and had a community ball diamond. None of the defendants wanted the land divided because it is a lake bed on a cyclical lake (critical wild habitat) and it is also our view and our community. Grandview Bay is also a historical site where Wop May, Will Rodgers and many famous bush pilots landed their float planes. At one time a ferry left from the bay to Lakeview and to North Cooking Lake. The history that exists here should also be preserved. Losing this area to an individual has caused sadness to many of us from the children to the elders in the community. I believe the essence of the riparian law was put in place for us to preserve our lifestyles not necessarily divide the land. The appeal judges took the old law of riparian rights and ignored the fact that at the time riparian rights were given, an old Canadian law that community rights supersede, would have been applied. This decision means that we are cut off from the community hall, walking paths that go around the lake into the park and has taken away our life style which is what riparian law was originally put in place for us to keep. It also means the majority of us will have our land jutting out at an angle instead of going straight out to the lake. Pursuant to section 89(1) of the Land Titles Act, an owner may apply to amend the description of the parcel to reflect the current location of the natural boundary. And 89 (3)(d) "with consent of the registered owners of parcels that may be adversely affected by the amendment of the description." The Alberta Law states that if we do not all agree on the land division then nothing will happen and nothing should have, as we all disagreed. It does not say that we could all be involved in a long drawn out court case that could cause some of us to re-mortgage our houses and cost us our reason for moving to the lake. To be in a law suit costs money, time, sleep, peace of mind, etc. In this case it was abuse allowed by the law. Perhaps an amendment to the riparian law should be put in place where the lake bed lands are held in trust by the Province and Municipality with the goal of preserving and protecting the lake bed. If the neighbors are interested in this land for a particular use,( ie. community area, picnic tables, open to snowmobiles, not open to snowmobiles, wildlife preserves) they, as the riparian owners, apply to the governments for this to happen. (In our case only one party did not agree with what to with this land and she wanted private ownership.) Majority rules or nothing happens, but the division of land should not be the only option (especially in cases where they overlap) and it should not be able to go to court. This solution would not only save our court systems time and our tax dollars, but would also save our nieghbourhoods and communities as well as our wildlife, migratory birds and sensitive lake habitats. My name is Lynn Forsythe and I was one of the parties sued in the Andriet versus the County of Strathcona et al. First of all I would like to correct you - it was Andriet v. the County of Strathcona and all the other people who lived around Grandview Bay. We felt that Judge Parras’s decision was not ideal, but better than the outcome of the appeal. If he hadn’t had a stroke and had just his preliminary notes used, perhaps his reasoning would have been more clear. All of us that were sued were okay with the lake bed ’s “land” going back to the province except for Andriet. However, we were in a unique situation where the Province owned it and leased to the County of Strathcona and they maintained it for the good of the community and the residence directly abutting the lake bed. However, if we didn’t respond to the appeal there was a potential of us losing completely.
This area had been used by the community for years as it backed on to the Community Hall and had a community ball diamond. None of the defendants wanted the land divided because it is a lake bed on a cyclical lake (critical wild habitat) and it is also our view and our community. Grandview Bay is also a historical site where Wop May, Will Rodgers and many famous bush pilots landed their float planes. At one time a ferry left from the bay to Lakeview and to North Cooking Lake. The history that exists here should also be preserved. Losing this area to an individual has caused sadness to many of us from the children to the elders in the community. I believe the essence of the riparian law was put in place for us to preserve our lifestyles not necessarily divide the land. The appeal judges took the old law of riparian rights and ignored the fact that at the time riparian rights were given, an old Canadian law that community rights supersede, would have been applied.

This decision means that we are cut off from the community hall, walking paths that go around the lake into the park and has taken away our life style which is what riparian law was originally put in place for us to keep. It also means the majority of us will have our land jutting out at an angle instead of going straight out to the lake.
Pursuant to section 89(1) of the Land Titles Act, an owner may apply to amend the description of the parcel to reflect the current location of the natural boundary. And 89 (3)(d) “with consent of the registered owners of parcels that may be adversely affected by the amendment of the description.” The Alberta Law states that if we do not all agree on the land division then nothing will happen and nothing should have, as we all disagreed. It does not say that we could all be involved in a long drawn out court case that could cause some of us to re-mortgage our houses and cost us our reason for moving to the lake. To be in a law suit costs money, time, sleep, peace of mind, etc. In this case it was abuse allowed by the law.

Perhaps an amendment to the riparian law should be put in place where the lake bed lands are held in trust by the Province and Municipality with the goal of preserving and protecting the lake bed. If the neighbors are interested in this land for a particular use,( ie. community area, picnic tables, open to snowmobiles, not open to snowmobiles, wildlife preserves) they, as the riparian owners, apply to the governments for this to happen. (In our case only one party did not agree with what to with this land and she wanted private ownership.) Majority rules or nothing happens, but the division of land should not be the only option (especially in cases where they overlap) and it should not be able to go to court.

This solution would not only save our court systems time and our tax dollars, but would also save our nieghbourhoods and communities as well as our wildlife, migratory birds and sensitive lake habitats.

]]>