[CANUFNET] recent boundary tree decision in Ontario Superior Court

Wed Jun 5 21:47:31 EDT 2013

Would this also apply to trees on the boundary between private and public (municipal) property? Or do municipal public tree by-laws supersede this. Many of these by-laws define ownership based on whether greater than 50% of the tree is over the property line. There is no shared ownership.
This issue came up here in Barrie when a councilor wanted to change the definition of a public tree to be if ANY part of the trunk is on public property.

Sent from Samsung Mobile

-------- Original message --------
From: Julian Dunster <jadunster at gmail.com>
Date: 06-05-2013 9:38 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: canufnet at list.web.net
Subject: Re: [CANUFNET] recent boundary tree decision in Ontario Superior Court

It has long been established law in Canada that a tree that straddles the property line is jointly owned. Ontario has specific legislation dealing with that. The new judgement seems to reinforce but not radically alter established law.

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,
PNWISA Certified Tree Risk Assessor # 1.
ISA Tree Risk Assessor Qualified

Honourary Life Member ISA + PNWISA

www.dunster.ca<http://www.dunster.ca>

On 04/06/2013 9:46 AM, Craig Bench wrote:

Seeing as the decision refers to the Ontario Forestry Act, I wonder what effect this has in BC?  We don’t have any similar, provincial level tree regulation, do we?

Craig Bench
Urban Forestry Technician
t: 604.998.3291 | e: cbench at cnv.org<mailto:cbench at cnv.org>

City of North Vancouver
141 West 14th Street, North Vancouver, BC  V7M 1H9
Reception: 604.985.7761 | www.cnv.org<http://www.cnv.org>
[http://intraweb/hdo2010/Outlook/Images/SocialMediaIcons/fb%2025.jpg]<https://www.facebook.com/CityOfNorthVancouver>  [http://intraweb/hdo2010/Outlook/Images/SocialMediaIcons/t25.jpg] <https://twitter.com/CityOfNorthVan>  [http://intraweb/hdo2010/Outlook/Images/SocialMediaIcons/YT25.jpg] <http://www.youtube.com/user/CityOfNorthVancouver/videos?view=0>   [http://intraweb/hdo2010/Outlook/Images/SocialMediaIcons/lin26.jpg] <http://www.linkedin.com/company/city-of-north-vancouver>

From: CANUFNET [mailto:canufnet-bounces at list.web.net] On Behalf Of Lr.rainville.consulting
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 7:29 PM
To: Canadian Urban Forest Network
Cc: <canufnet at list.web.net><mailto:canufnet at list.web.net>
Subject: Re: [CANUFNET] recent boundary tree decision in Ontario Superior Court

Thanks for sharing this...this is a great win for the protection of our urban forest!
Luc Rainville
L&R Rainville Consulting
ISA Certified Arborist AUM
1629 11th Avenue SW, unit #B
Calgary, Alberta T3C 0N3
403-702-6648

Sent from my iPhone / Envoyé de mon iPhone

It's Ok to print this email. Paper comes from a biodegradable, recyclable, renewable resource - trees. Making forest products from sustainably managed forests results in jobs for thousands of people, clean air, clean water, wildlife habitat and carbon storage.

"If wildness can stop being (just) out there and start being (also) in here, if it can start being as humane as it is natural, then perhaps we can get on with the unending task of struggling to live rightly in the world—not just in the garden, not just in the wilderness, but in the home that encompasses them both." (Cronon, 1995)

“Introduced plants, animals, and pathogens often pose an initially hidden but eventually monumental problem...Their harmful effects are often subtle and surreptitious, but
the eventual impacts on the economy or natural environment are no less real, and [are] often disastrous and even irreversible.” (Daniel Simberloff, 1996)

Le 2013-06-03 à 14:52, "Lorraine Johnson" <ljohnson at interlog.com<mailto:ljohnson at interlog.com>> a écrit :

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>
<Hartley vs Cunningham et al. Ruling 2013.pdf>
<Land Mark Tree Ruling Final Press Release 05- 21-13.pdf>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.web.net/pipermail/canufnet/attachments/20130606/40d08522/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ATT00005.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 12695 bytes
Desc: ATT00005.jpg
URL: <http://list.web.net/pipermail/canufnet/attachments/20130606/40d08522/attachment-0004.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ATT00006.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1496 bytes
Desc: ATT00006.jpg
URL: <http://list.web.net/pipermail/canufnet/attachments/20130606/40d08522/attachment-0005.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ATT00007.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2331 bytes
Desc: ATT00007.jpg
URL: <http://list.web.net/pipermail/canufnet/attachments/20130606/40d08522/attachment-0006.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ATT00008.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 13992 bytes
Desc: ATT00008.jpg
URL: <http://list.web.net/pipermail/canufnet/attachments/20130606/40d08522/attachment-0007.jpg>