[CANUFNET] recent boundary tree decision in Ontario Superior Court

[Robin Wells]

Agreed Oliver.  Although the City of Toronto, in the paragraph following the requirement to have an arborist fill in the report does indicate arborists are certified by ISA or registered with ASCA ( a good start ).  But it needs to clearly state that one of these certified or registered arborists are required to complete the report.  In fact, it might be good to go one step further and require a qualified tree risk assessor if they want to up the stakes a bit.


"If you require a permit to remove or injure a protected tree, you must complete and submit an Application to Injure or Destroy Trees<http://www.toronto.ca/trees/pdfs/PrivateTreeBy-lawInfoSheetandPermitApplication.pdf> and the required fee and supplementary documents to the appropriate district office, as shown below. An arborist report is required for all Applications to Injure or Destroy Trees. You can find professional tree service companies, that can prepare an arborist report, by checking the Yellow Pages<http://www.yellowpages.ca/> or similar business directories such as The Gold Book<http://www.goldbook.ca/goldbook>. An internet search using keyphrases such as "tree service companies Toronto" should provide listings as well.

Arborists are certified with the International Society of Arboriculture (I.S.A.) or registered with the American Society of Consulting Arborists (A.S.C.A.). You may mail, courier, or hand-deliver the completed application package to the appropriate district office as shown below."


On another note, I am wondering what Justice Moore would rule was the "trunk".  Is it the central, dominant leader?  What if there are multiple co-dominant leaders?  What an arborist may call a trunk may differ from a lawyer, is there a legal definition somewhere?


"Justice Moore also rejected the argument that the only thing that matters when determining shared trees is whether the trunk crosses the boundary line at ground level. According to his ruling, if any part of the tree’s trunk crosses the property boundary, it is a co-­‐owned tree. "

Robin Wells

On 2013-06-04, at 11:11 AM, "Oliver Reichl" <careofthetrees at gmail.com<mailto:careofthetrees at gmail.com>> wrote:

Thanks for posting this.

Toronto needs to tighten up its definition of "arborist" in the private tree by-law. Most municipalities require specific credentials and don't accept reports from just any "person with other similar qualifications". It seems to me that Hartley should never have gotten her removal permit in the first place, regardless of the whole property line issue.

Oliver K. Reichl, B.E.S.(Hons)
Consulting Arborist-Ecologist
ISA Certified Arborist #ON-1178A
Tel: 613-923-8833
Web: www.oliverkilian.com/treecare<http://www.oliverkilian.com/treecare>


On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Lorraine Johnson <ljohnson at interlog.com<mailto:ljohnson at interlog.com>> wrote:

Hi,

You might be interested in this recent Ontario Superior Court decision regarding a boundary tree in Toronto. Also attached is a press release from two of the people involved in the case.

I plan to write an article about this for Ground: Landscape Architect Quarterly and would very much like to hear from anyone with comments on the decision. Please feel free to get in touch with me off-list.

Cheers,

Lorraine Johnson

Writer, and editor of Ground

ljohnson at interlog.com<mailto:ljohnson at interlog.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.web.net/pipermail/canufnet/attachments/20130604/dbc47205/attachment.html>