<div dir="ltr"><div>From my reading of the case, the court seemed to be siding with a common sense approach rather than promoting a single way of treating all leaning trees if that is what the problem is.</div><div><br></div><div>Bohdan Kowalyk</div><div><br></div></div><div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br><table style="border-top:1px solid #d3d4de"><tr><td style="width:55px;padding-top:13px"><a href="http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail" target="_blank"><img src="https://s-install.avcdn.net/ipm/preview/icons/icon-envelope-tick-green-avg-v1.png" alt="" width="46" height="29" style="width: 46px; height: 29px;"></a></td><td style="width:470px;padding-top:12px;color:#41424e;font-size:13px;font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;line-height:18px">Virus-free.<a href="http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail" target="_blank" style="color:#4453ea">www.avg.com</a></td></tr></table><a href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1" height="1"></a></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 10:19 AM Julian Dunster via CANUFNET <<a href="mailto:canufnet@list.web.net">canufnet@list.web.net</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div>
<p>Hartley was an unfortunate decision as it clarified nothing of
use and created a mess. The rest of Canada has largely ignored it
in bylaws and case law. The rest of the world typically works with
the base of the tree and the boundary line. <br>
</p>
<p>The messiness of Hartley and the silliness that results from it,
is illustrated in Trees and The Law in Canada. <br>
</p>
<pre cols="72">Yours sincerely,
On Behalf of Dunster and Associates Environmental Consultants Ltd.
Dr. Julian A Dunster R.P.F., R.P.P.., M.C.I.P., ISA Certified Arborist,
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist # 378,
ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified
Honourary Life Member ISA + PNWISA
<a href="http://www.dunster.ca" target="_blank">www.dunster.ca</a> <a href="http://www.treelaw.info" target="_blank">www.treelaw.info</a> North American distributor for Rinntech <a href="http://www.rinntech.info" target="_blank">www.rinntech.info</a></pre>
<div>On Wed/2/21/2024 12:52 PM, Alison Bond
via CANUFNET wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hello Canufnet:<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We’ve provided advice to our clients in the
past about what would constitute a boundary tree in Ontario,
based on the Hartley vs. Cunningham case (2013.) It seems
that most municipalities use this interpretation (i.e., if
any portion of the trunk up to the first branch crosses a
vertical projection of the property boundary, then it is a
boundary tree.)<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As it has been more than 10 years since
that case, I am wondering whether this has been successfully
challenged or whether this is still the accepted definition?
I am asking mainly to ensure that we are giving our clients
correct information.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thank you.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Regards,<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Alison<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:3.75pt"><span style="font-size:10pt">Alison Bond </span><b><span style="font-size:7.5pt;color:gray">BSc
MSc BLA OALA CSLA</span></b><span><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:3.75pt"><b><span style="font-size:7.5pt;color:gray">Landscape
Architect and Certified Arborist</span></b><span><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:3.75pt"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Arial Narrow",sans-serif"> </span><span><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:3.75pt"><b><span style="font-size:10pt">ENVISION-TATHAM
Inc.</span></b><span><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:3.75pt"><span style="font-size:7.5pt">115 Sandford
Fleming Drive, Suite 200, Collingwood, ON L9Y 5A6</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:3.75pt"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;color:fuchsia"><a href="mailto:abond@envision-tatham.com" target="_blank"><span style="color:purple">abond@envision-tatham.com</span></a></span><span style="font-size:7.5pt"> I Tel: <a href="tel:7054450422" target="_blank"><span style="color:purple">705.445.0422</span></a> I Fax: <a href="tel:7054442327" target="_blank"><span style="color:purple">705.444.2327</span></a> I Cell: <a href="tel:7059942059" target="_blank"><span style="color:purple">705.994.2059</span></a> I </span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Arial Narrow",sans-serif"><a href="http://www.envision-tatham.com/" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:purple">www.envision-tatham.com</span></a></span><span><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:3.75pt"><span style="font-size:8pt">This email may
contain confidential and/or privileged information for the
sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or
distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this email in error, please contact the sender and
delete all copies.</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote></div>