[CANUFNET] Boundary Trees

[Jack Radecki]

I was one of the key consultants and felt that the case went very well and indeed did set a precedence for these matters and also tree protection. I disagree with comments made below.

 

Jack Radecki RCA 342

 

From: CANUFNET <canufnet-bounces at list.web.net> On Behalf Of Bohdan Kowalyk via CANUFNET
Sent: February 23, 2024 5:43 PM
To: Canadian Urban Forest Network <canufnet at list.web.net>
Cc: Bohdan Kowalyk <bohdan.kowalyk at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [CANUFNET] Boundary Trees

 

>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.

 

Bohdan Kowalyk

 

 


 <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> 

Virus-free. <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> www.avg.com

 

On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 10:19 AM Julian Dunster via CANUFNET <canufnet at list.web.net <mailto:canufnet at list.web.net> > wrote:

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. 

The messiness of Hartley and the silliness that results from it, is illustrated in Trees and The Law in Canada. 

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
 
www.dunster.ca <http://www.dunster.ca>         www.treelaw.info <http://www.treelaw.info>                North American distributor for Rinntech www.rinntech.info <http://www.rinntech.info> 

On Wed/2/21/2024 12:52 PM, Alison Bond via CANUFNET wrote:

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

 <mailto:abond at envision-tatham.com> abond at envision-tatham.com I Tel:  <tel:7054450422> 705.445.0422 I Fax:  <tel:7054442327> 705.444.2327 I Cell:  <tel:7059942059> 705.994.2059 I  <http://www.envision-tatham.com/> 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.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.web.net/pipermail/canufnet/attachments/20240224/ab526f8e/attachment.htm>