Locked Land Purchase

[jude]

Hello,
I am interested in buying a locked land (taxsale).  However this land is surrounded by crown land.  There is a path for this property.  Property is residential zone.  How to deal with this?  Can I ask the city to get me a path or road allowance?
Thanks for all your expert discussions.
Jude

[LarasDad]

Well Jude, I don't have any pertinent experience or direct knowledge that I can share with you and the board, but I did some googling out of self-interest and found a couple items that others might find relevant and/or useful.

from the (now-defunct) Lang Michener ?Law of the Land? blog

http://lawoftheland.blogs.com/law_of_the_land_canadian_/2005/04/do_you_have_a_r.html

In Ontario, Do You Have a Right to Your Right of Way?

Does your property have a right of way, such as a driveway, across an adjoining property?  You may be surprised to learn that a number of lawyers and legal commentators believe that for certain properties this right of way will expire 40 years after it was first granted, unless you take positive steps to preserve your interest.  This issue was considered in a recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

? But is this approach justified?  Or, in the absence of a Notice of Claim, does an easement registered under the Registry Act simply cease to exist 40 years after it was granted?

The Ramsay Decision

The case, 1387881 Ontario Inc. v. Ramsay (?Ramsay?) is a decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dated June 25, 2004. In this case, the applicant was the owner of a Registry Act property (the ?Servient Property?) which was subject to certain registered rights of way (the ?Easements?) which had been granted in 1941 and 1945, more than 40 years prior to the time in question. The respondents were the owners of several cottage properties that had the benefit of the Easements (the ?Dominant Properties?). Each of the respondents had purchased the Dominant Properties within 40 years after the creation of the Easements, and their deeds to the Dominant Properties specifically referred to the Easements. The deed by which the applicant took title to the Servient Property also noted the Easements.  None of the respondents registered a Notice of Claim with respect to the Easements prior to expiry of the 40 year search period.

The owner of the Servient Property argued that the Easements had been extinguished because no Notice of Claim had been filed within the 40 year notice period. The applicants contended that the registration of the deeds of the Dominant Properties constituted notice of the Easements, and since less than 40 years had passed since the registration of the deeds, the Easements had not expired.  The court had to decide whether the references to the Easements in the deeds was enough to keep them alive, or whether the respondents had to take the extra step of registering a Notice of Claim in the prescribed form.

Clark J. of the Superior Court of Justice reviewed the relevant statutory provisions, caselaw and policy objectives underlying the 40 year rule, and concluded that notice of an interest in land can be given by either the registration of an instrument or the registration of a Notice of Claim. Therefore, the registration of the deeds to Dominant Properties and the Servient Property, which all specifically referred to the Easements, constituted notice of the Easements. Accordingly, the Easements had not expired and still affected the Servient Property.

Future Developments

Ramsay should give some comfort to property owners relying on registered easements for access to and use of their lands.  However, an appeal of this decision was heard by the Ontario Court of Appeal in January, 2005. The decision of the Court of Appeal has still not been released. There is a chance that the Court of Appeal may overturn the decision and hold that the only method for protecting an easement or other claim under the Registry Act beyond the 40 year period is by registering a Notice of Claim in the prescribed form. Some commentators have strongly criticized the lower court ruling and have cited caselaw which offers some support for this position. 

http://lawoftheland.blogs.com/law_of_the_land_canadian_/2006/07/supreme_court_o.html

Supreme Court of Canada Decides Right of Way Issue

The Supreme Court of Canada has refused to grant leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in a case that had potentially serious consequences for some Ontario property owners.
In December 2005, we wrote about the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in 1387881 Ontario Inc. v. Ramsay, regarding whether the benefit of a registered right of way could be preserved beyond the 40 year expiry period under the Registry Act by merely referring to the easement in a subsequent deed, or whether registration of a Notice of Claim in the form prescribed by the Act was necessary. The Court upheld the lower court's ruling and confirmed that a claim against land can be preserved in two ways: by registration of a Notice of Claim or by a ?true acknowledgment? of the claim set forth in an instrument registered within the notice period.

The decision was significant because some commentators felt that, had the Court of Appeal reached the opposite conclusion, it would have opened the door for an owner of a property subject to a registered easement created more than 40 years ago to delete the easement by, for example, registering a deed to itself not referring to the easement. As there are still properties in Ontario which rely on just such easements for access or other rights, the potential consequences were serious (although with the ongoing conversion of land from the Registry Act to the Land Titles Act, under which this issue does not arise, the problem is gradually becoming of less practical significance).

While the Court of Appeal's decision provided reassurance to property owners who rely on these sorts of easements, the decision was appealed to the Supreme Court and thus a degree of uncertainty remained.  With the Supreme Court's recent refusal to grant leave to appeal, this matter should now be resolved once and for all.  See 1387881 Ontario Inc. v. Ramsay (2006), 41 R.P.R. (4th) 208.

John Payne

=====================================================================

And, from Financial Webring Forum

http://www.financialwebring.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=114367#p451110

pmj wrote: My understanding of Ontario practice - and my reading of the Alberta law quoted - is that a land-locked lot cannot be created

Technically, but not in reality. I've encountered several land-locked lots since moving to the country. Udora, my first home area, has several because Estonian cottagers in the '50s ignored lot lines and, it turns out, created several roads -- actually laneways -- in the wrong place.* While fighting blanket mosquito spraying in the early 2000s, an environmental group discovered that the official plan and property tax map bears no relation to reality. (To the fire chief's chagrin, the group also found several homes and cottages in woods so thick that they could not be reached by fire trucks.)

* Udora is full of problems for today's lawyers and planners because the Estonian immigrants who bought up much of it in the '50s wanted to make their cottage country as much like Estonia as possible. That included the creation of common lands and walkways which don't exist under our law. The Estonians dealt with that by taking a very small strategically located piece of land and registering it in the names of 9 or more unrelated people, thus preventing future development.

Here in more cosmopolitan Uxbridge, recent years have seen two cases of landlocked properties. One involved a friend of mine and was due to the failure by her lawyer to properly register an easement when the rural property was purchased more than 20 years ago. This failure came to light when her cantankerous neighbour cut off her road access when she refused to pay an outrageous amount of money that he demanded. I don't know the details of the other, but it involves two rural properties with one in front of the other.

==============================================================

Sorry I can't be of more help.

[landbaronofthenorth]

Was going to bid on this one, but got cold feet at the last minute and chickened out 

I assume that the bidders were aware of the Algonquin land claim issue in the area of this property, but just in case the following link may be of some interest

http://www.tanakiwin.com/aip/Map_H-ALC_Proposed_Algonquin_Settlement_Lands_Nipissing_District.pdf


The existing "path" to the property appears to run through proposed settlement lands which made me a bit cautious

[jude]

Thanks LarasDad.  Very useful information.  Does anyone know about the results for this?
The Corporation of the United Townships of Head, Clara & Maria.  Yes path is an issue/Algonquin land claim issue.  But there were few ppl interested.  I bit for it; but didn't know the results.

Thanks.
Jude

[landbaronofthenorth]

$ 26,600
18 bids in total

[jude]

Hello Everyone,
Hard to believe this property went to 26k.  I am seeing all these negative issues:
1. Locked Land
2. Indian Land Claims
3. No real road access
4. Can only get a seasonal / limited Residential building permit
What am I missing?  What are the pros?  Why it went to this high price, accessed value is 15k?

I got many unanswered questions, after bitting for this property.  Any discussions are appreciated.

Take care.
Jude

[g2020]

Hey Jude. The permitted building is intended to be a hunting cabin, and with a pond on the property and adjoining crown land, I am sure that 26k may be reasonable. I would have paid that much if I found it attractive and could make use of it. It is better to pay 26k and get what you want, than to pay 15k and get something that you either cannot use or that you would not be happy to own. As an investor you can never compete with a local buying for his/her own use. Maybe there was 26k of timber - this would not be reflected in the assessment. Likewise the imputed value of the surrounding crown land is not considered in the assessed value even though I know hunters who would pay as much for 108 acres surrounded by crown land as they would for 300 acres surrounded by patented land. It is always good to compare to the the 2nd or 3rd bid so if I post results I try to give at least the 2nd high plus the total number of tenders so that you get a better idea of how well you bid. It is also good to know who the high tenderer was, since on Talisman I found it helpful when Frank explained that the high bid on the Talisman property that he tendered came from a local who was buying the acreage and workshop for his own use. I hope this helps.
PS. This is my century, that is, my 100th posting which I could toast with one of those beers if had actually ever received one. I also road my first century this winter which for cyclists is 100 miles in one day. Now if I can just get my karma to 100 - for some of us it is good to know that our postings are helpful.

[Dave2]

It is also good to know who the high tenderer was, since on Talisman I found it helpful when Frank explained that the high bid on the Talisman property that he tendered came from a local who was buying the acreage and workshop for his own use. I hope this helps.
PS. This is my century, that is, my 100th posting which I could toast with one of those beers if had actually ever received one. I also road my first century this winter which for cyclists is 100 miles in one day. Now if I can just get my karma to 100 - for some of us it is good to know that our postings are helpful.

Jude:

It is not the first time as in Marmora and Lake a few years ago there was a similar pattern.  Turned out locals bought it well above market because the property was the only open property that they had not tied up in the big exclusive hunting area they had.  Blew me away because of the price they paid.  

G2020:  

Unfortunately my beer obligations do not include delivery so how about you drop by when you investigate the island that is for sale.  (see OTS details). In recognition of your hundredth I will stand back from it.  

 ontariotaxsales.ca/nc/upcoming-tax-sales/featured-properties/single-property/pruid/3645/TSuid/854/pBack/78.html

I was surprised it is even in Canada.  Probably last sold in Prohibition days as a smuggler would probably pay a fortune for it.  Want to bet how close it is to the border?

Maybe you can get real lucky like the famous georgian bay case and find you are the owner of Georgina Island or even the border crossing.  

[landbaronofthenorth]

http://www.dignam.com/southern-ontario/land-for-sale-in-southern-ontario/4812-on/

The above property should look familiar...

[jude]

Real people know the value of the land!  Wow, nice to see someone is making a business on this!!!  I have HOPE!!!

[Dave2]

http://www.dignam.com/southern-ontario/land-for-sale-in-southern-ontario/4812-on/

The above property should look familiar...

Thanks for the information.  If they are to change their pricing they will have a definite market effect, but I think more information is needed to draw that conclusion.

The last tax sale purchase market read I had on Dignam was last fall and they had not changed historic pricing policy both buy and sell.  I suggest that it maybe something unique to this property that gives it additional value. 

Any one else have other evidence of a change in Dignams pricing philosophy. 

[ruok]

They stole this property. I too was uneasy with the Algonquin Land Claim issue and did not get all the facts in time to submit a tender. If I had , I would have been in the mix. Gov't has excellent maps outlining the land claim in the area of that property. Their Draft Plan clearly designates Part 9 as the road allowances that
are located on the north and south sides of that land. They also have a schedule that states that Part 9 (road allowances) are excluded from the land claim.
Also spoke with the head Liason Officer regarding the Algonquin Land Claim and she advised that it will be years before the Claim is complete. With the Agreement in Principle  nearing completion, there are now years of fieldwork and subtle changes to boundaries to be completed. I was suprised when she said it could be 12 years before completion. She said that many of those involved from the beginning, such as herself, will be retired before it is completed.
This was a good information as I was not aware of the full facts of the Land Claim. Hope this will be of some assistance to others.Wish I had the info in time to submit a tender because you can't get 100 acres for less than $30,000.
I'm not bitter on the outcome or Dinams price. That's what we are all trying to do. Check out Kijiji or real estate listings. You will recognize tax sale properties with even higher mark up.
Lost this one but will try again.

 .

[Dave2]

They stole this property. Lost this one but will try again.

Ruok:

You never know.  Still can't figure out the results for the island property that I tried to steer G2020 too down in Leeds and 1000 islands. (see earlier post in this topic).   

Top two bids were very close and similar in price to this 100 acres (over $26,000 for winning bid) and second very close at over $25,0000. 

So small in area all you can put on it is a picnic table.  No way I would have bid that amount and there was a problem there that I will not mention because
it may prevent your use of the property in the way I think the bidders intended. 

[ErnestBidder]

  Perhaps they also wanted to build a starlight tunnel to the sky. Or maybe build a Frank (not you, Frank) Lloyd Wright dream design anchored on each end to an island. The buyer may be an old cub -or boy-scout with fond memories of living in his pup tent. That's the interesting thing: until you see what they've done, you won't know; all you can do is save up yor best "why didn't I think of that" expression.

  Also, don't forget that you may want to drive the road one day, and find it blockaded, because everyone dragged their heels.