[CANUFNET] Boundary Trees

[Michael Richardson]

I know this will be unpopular but here goes.

Sorry but the Hartley v. Cunningham case never tested the OFA Sec. 10 and
is  not a precedent case.  Use of OFA Sec. 10 in Ontario has no legal
basis.  Read COURT FILE NO.: CV-13-472202.

You should refer to Julian Dunster's Trees and the Law in Canada and
understand not only his writings but some of the cases he quotes.  He also
mentions that the "definitive discussion about boundary law" is found in
Principles of Boundary Law in Canada.

Michael



> Hello Canufnet:
>
> 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.)
>
> 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.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Regards,
> Alison
>
> Alison Bond BSc MSc BLA OALA CSLA
> Landscape Architect and Certified Arborist
>
> ENVISION-TATHAM Inc.
> 115 Sandford Fleming Drive, Suite 200, Collingwood, ON  L9Y 5A6
> abond at envision-tatham.com<mailto:abond at envision-tatham.com> I Tel:
> 705.445.0422<tel:7054450422> I Fax: 705.444.2327<tel:7054442327> I Cell:
> 705.994.2059<tel:7059942059> I
> www.envision-tatham.com<http://www.envision-tatham.com/>
> 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.
>
>