Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[IronNoggin]

Fish and game club plans to take Douglas Lake dispute to Supreme Court of Canada

"The Nicola Valley Fish and Game Club may have lost a recent court battle for public access to Stoney and Minnie Lakes, but that doesn't mean they've given up. The club is hoping to take the case to the Supreme Court of Canada to win a "precedent-setting" case for public access to waterways."

https://infotel.ca/newsitem/fish-and-game-club-plans-to-take-douglas-lake-dispute-to-supreme-court-of-canada/it81499

[IronNoggin]

SCC to decide lake access?

"Having now had their hopes dashed by BC’s highest court, the NVFGC decided at a meeting of the executive held on March 14 to take their plea to the highest court in the country.

“We’ve decided to pursue the case to the Supreme Court of Appeal of Canada,” said McGowan.

“The bottom line, the huge issue, is that the judge ruled that if the landowner acquires a water license and raises the water over his private property, that property and the water above it is private, so you can’t get to the public part of a public lake, which is bizarre. And that affects thousands and thousands of lakes in British Columbia and Canada, which is really serious,” McGowan continued.

“It’s not a good thing for the people of British Columbia and future generations, it’s basically just a terrible ruling, it’s for the very rich and not taking into concern provincial laws and legislation and/or the people of British Columbia and future generations. It’s basically taking public property and giving it for free to rich people.”

https://www.castanet.net/news/Kamloops/328073/Merritt-area-fishing-club-says-it-plans-to-appeal-lake-access-decision-to-Canada-s-highest-court#328073

[RalphH]

McGowan statement contains a number of errors. One simply has to read the actual ruling and not the press clippings to see this. All 3 judges on the appeals bench made the ruling not just one. There was not a dissenting opinion. In his 2018 ruling Judge Grove acknowledged parts of both lakes may be in fact be private since both lakes were raised and DLCC land was flooded (see paras 253 and 277).

The part that is bizzare about both Mr McGowan's and his Lawyer Mr Harvey's statements is that the issue for this case is moot in any event since the court ruled that other than via Wasely Creek to Minnie Lake, there is no public access to either lake! This is the kind of unexpected event that occurs when parties who go to court fail to think it through completely. It also illustrates why the best way to change situations like this is to amend the Land and Land Titles Acts, not the courts where the status quo may be virtually cast in cement for eternity.

[IronNoggin]

Decades-long battle over 2 B.C. lakes shines light on public access to Crown lands

In response to a request from CBC, a spokesperson for the B.C. Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development said it is studying the Minnie and Stoney lakes court decision and considering "all options," including making changes so "British Columbians can further enjoy recreation on public lands."

What he wants to see are easements, or pathways, on contested properties to ensure that the public can access lakes and other wilderness areas that are currently out of reach.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-crown-lands-access-court-battle-1.5987099