There is evidence to support the bylaw. There are affidavits to prove public use. There is documentation proving municipal funding. Isn’t all the rest simply rhetoric?
If you want the truth; we will attempt to present it and try to avoid making statements that we can’t back up with factual evidence gained through research done before we approached council in 2004 to ask that the barricades, recently erected (on what we knew and could prove to be municipal property) be removed.
We repeatedly asked the previous council to simply do just that- remove the barricades. At no time did we ask them to re-establish the public road which was never opened anywhere close to its intended 66 foot width. This is very typical for beach roads throughout this province. We simply wanted the municipality to enforce public passage across the 10 properties involved in this conflict. Initially this involved 2 properties, one owner.
But due to delays by the previous council in July of 2005 it then became 3 properties and 2 owners. By this time our lawyers suggested that the Bylaw strengthened our demands for barrier removal. But at no time was it suggested that a 66 foot public road be put in place.
We knew that there was physical evidence through photographs, maps and deeds, as well as a wealth of personal recall (not just by shore property owners) of the disputed public road south of registered Plan of Subdivision 294 which created North Georgian Beach and in fact there is also registered Plan of Subdivision 284 which created South Georgian Beach.
We were not aware of the same kind of evidence north of Plan 294 for the properties which include
Some other owners have either inadvertently or intentionally become involved because of what they have been told concerning the judge’s directions in April of this year. Many have been misled and are jumping to conclusions. We listened as the judge said that the municipality was to inform all owners of property on the original bylaw that these proceedings were taking place. We are waiting for a letter from the municipality, in accordance with those directions given by the presiding Judge, Ontario Superior Court Justice J. Daley, to clarify the next steps to be taken.
The original intent of the municipality was not to enforce a 66 foot road and in fact in 2007 Bylaw 80 was passed which provides for a walking path across these ten lots between the two registered Plans of Subdivision. As well, owners of five of those ten lots have indicated to the municipality they have no problem with the municipal intent.
Doesn’t it really come down to four owners who are driving the costs of this conflict? We could not use the civil court process because the property is municipally-controlled. This was proven through the research of deeds by the municipal solicitor and a property survey by Ronald J. Stewart, B.Sc., OLS, OLIP, manager boundary litigation (bound by law to go back to the original patent of the land) of Marshall, Macklin, Monaghan Ontario Ltd. Council asked both the solicitor and the surveyor to get to the truth of the matter. That was accomplished and a statement of claim was issued by the Municipality to owners on the illegally blocked section. After all there are specific legal steps which must be followed before a public road may be closed and this was not what had happened.
Five of the owners have complied. Four have chosen to not to.
Council has shown due diligence in proceeding with litigation. Should council stop now before a court decision is reached then a precedent will be set. This and all future councils will fear protecting the rights of their constituents due to costs and in essence will avoid pursuing any case that might involve expenditure of public money. Who then decides how much is too much or how much is enough? These are elected representatives who are heeding expert advice and making difficult decisions. None of those involved can be any less concerned about the expenditure than council members.
It cannot be denied that no where else along the shore from the town of
Chris Emerson, Meaford
+ 2 + 2 
