Print

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

[wildmanyeah]

Any update on this?

[Wiseguy]

Any updates this story? Is it still before the courts?

[RalphH]

Arguments by the defense and plaintiff have been presented and it may take some months before a ruling is released.

[IronNoggin]

Lake access ruling reversed

B.C. Court of Appeal overturns groundbreaking 2018 decision granting public access to private lakes

B.C.’s highest court has overturned a groundbreaking 2018 decision granting public access to private lakes, likening the words of the trial judge to those of an advocate.

https://www.castanet.net/news/BC/327041/B-C-Court-of-Appeal-overturns-groundbreaking-2018-decision-granting-public-access-to-private-lakes#327041

[RalphH]

The NF&G club basically won everything they asked for other than the right to cross private land owned by DLCC to fish the lakes;

the original surface area of the lakes are public. Those parts that were added when the lake level was raised are private

the existing road is public.

Minnie Lake can be accessed legally via either the creek that drains it

the fish in the lake no matter how they got there or who stocked them are public and managed under Provincial regulation.

However just because a former public road that once skirted Stoney lake is now underwater is not justification for trespass.

Likewise none of the claims that right of way trails or roads into Minnie are public were recognized. When land transfers from Crown title to private the right to travel on trails etc is extinguished. That's always been in the Land and Land title acts.

There are a lot of lakes in the area that have public access points. Unfortunately the DLCC lakes became private long before the public desire to access such lakes developed and was recognized.


the full ruling by the Court of Appeal which was endorsed by all 3 sitting judges is here:

https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/ca/21/00/2021BCCA0099.htm#_Toc65246391

[IronNoggin]

The lawyer for the club is quite confident that they will win a appeal in the Canadian court of appeal. 

The process of filing said appeal is already in motion.

This saga is far from over...

[RalphH]

well that's good though it is a terrible cost for the club to bear. How much money are you ponying up IN?

[IronNoggin]

Between what I have already piped along, and what a handful of us on the Island will be combining & sending for their appeal, I'd hazard a guess it is one hell of a lot more than you Ralphie Ol' Chap.

Nog

[RalphH]

I have not and have no intention to make any contribution. I expect the SCOC will decline to hear the appeal. There are likely more than a few reasons for them to g
go that way.

[IronNoggin]

I have not and have no intention to make any contribution. I expect the SCOC will decline to hear the appeal. There are likely more than a few reasons for them to fo that way.

I find your lack of care and concern entirely unsurprising, and of course anything in the way of help Ralphie Ol' Chap. Simply goes with one of your mindset.

As for the SCOC, I'd hazard a guess you are in error in your guesses once again. There are more than sufficient grounds for the appeal, as has been discussed & recently pointed out by several much more educated and informed minds than yours.

Cheers,
Nog

[RalphH]

LOL! The resolution of every legal argument involved one party being in the wrong. 

There are better ways to resolve issues like this. The NFGC vs DLCC will only resolve the issue for 2 lakes. I have yet to read or hear a qualified legal person say this case will likely change anything outside of access to Minnie and Stoney or serve as any sort of useful legal precedent ergo it is a waste of money and time.

A far better approach is to legislate a change. A positive first step would be to get the 3 major parties to support such a change as part of their platforms for the next Provincial election.

[IronNoggin]

... I have yet to read or hear a qualified legal person say this case will likely change anything outside of access to Minnie and Stoney or serve as any sort of useful legal precedent ergo it is a waste of money and time.

Just because "you haven't heard it" doesn't mean that doesn't exist. Ralphie Ol' Chap. In fact, a handful of Legal Beagles I work with were (and are) ready to pounce on similar issues occurring here on the Island, based upon what happens with this particular case. However it is entirely unlikely they'd be at all willing to share any of their findings with you, so I can understand you being out of the loop.

A far better approach is to legislate a change. A positive first step would be to get the 3 major parties to support such a change as part of their platforms for the next Provincial election.

And just when I believe you to be a Total KnotHead, you come up with something that I can actually get right behind. Awesome.

Cheers indeed Ralph. Have a great evening.
Nog

[RalphH]

Just wanted to mention that civil  appellants (this is a civil case) have to request an approval of "Leave to Appeal" directly to the SCOC. The court determines which cases it will hear and which it will not. It does not provide reasons why a leave to appeal is declined.

Generally the number cases granted leave are about 10% of the total applications submitted in any given  year.

[IronNoggin]

Pressure on B.C. government to fix trespassing laws that favour U.S. billionaire and other landowners

"Unlike other jurisdictions, British Columbia does not have public access legislation,' says judge, inspiring outdoors people to call for action.

Environmentalists, lawyers and outdoors groups say B.C. judges have recently made it clear that it’s Victoria’s job to fix illogical laws that allow private property owners to keep anglers and hikers away from publicly owned lakes and rivers because they own the land surrounding the waterways.

“It makes no sense to me that the Crown would retain ownership of the lakes, only for there to be no access because someone owns all the land surrounding the lake,” wrote the judge. “I have been a presider in the superior courts of British Columbia for close to 18 years and I have never felt the need until this case to comment to government … on a circumstance that has come before me with the hope of urging politicians to act.”

Groves called on the B.C. government to revamp the Trespass Act. He told politicians in Victoria there is no point to the province owning lakes, lake beds and fish if public access can’t be regulated. “Consider doing what other jurisdictions have done and guarantee access to this precious resource.”

https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-pressure-on-b-c-govt-to-fix-trespassing-laws-that-favour-u-s-billionaire-and-other-landowners

[CohoJake]

Pressure on B.C. government to fix trespassing laws that favour U.S. billionaire and other landowners

"Unlike other jurisdictions, British Columbia does not have public access legislation,' says judge, inspiring outdoors people to call for action.

Environmentalists, lawyers and outdoors groups say B.C. judges have recently made it clear that it’s Victoria’s job to fix illogical laws that allow private property owners to keep anglers and hikers away from publicly owned lakes and rivers because they own the land surrounding the waterways.

“It makes no sense to me that the Crown would retain ownership of the lakes, only for there to be no access because someone owns all the land surrounding the lake,” wrote the judge. “I have been a presider in the superior courts of British Columbia for close to 18 years and I have never felt the need until this case to comment to government … on a circumstance that has come before me with the hope of urging politicians to act.”

Groves called on the B.C. government to revamp the Trespass Act. He told politicians in Victoria there is no point to the province owning lakes, lake beds and fish if public access can’t be regulated. “Consider doing what other jurisdictions have done and guarantee access to this precious resource.”

https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-pressure-on-b-c-govt-to-fix-trespassing-laws-that-favour-u-s-billionaire-and-other-landowners

I would LOVE to have a similar law in the US, but alas, we have the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which includes "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." I support this right overall, but I wish that the state of Washington would have reserved a public right of access before it sold off property.  Washington is one of the few states where private individuals can own tidelands, which means there are private shellfish beaches - something that still irks me. My fantasy in Washington is that the state would just offer a discount on property taxes (or a complete abatement of taxes for a number of years) in exchange for public bank access. Public access is one of the biggest reasons I miss fishing in BC.

 Some quick research tells me that there was some effort to codify property rights in Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but I don't see that there is any similar codified right in Canada.