Kanu Links
Ontario Court Ruling
on the definition of Navigability of a Creek
Summary:
Action for a declaration that a creek was not a
navigable waterway. At issue was the interpretation of section 1 of the Beds of
Navigable Waters Act, and in particular what was meant by "an express grant of
it" and "navigable". The latter issue included a dispute as to
whether navigability related to commercial or recreational navigation.
HELD: Action dismissed. Express meant particular
rather than general. There were no express grants exempting the creek bed from
Crown ownership. It was navigable, in that it was an aqueous highway,
especially for canoes, for five to eight weeks during the spring run-off and for hunting
for a number of weeks in the fall.
Statutes, Regulations and Rules Cited:
** Unedited **
Indexed as:
Casselman v. Ontario (Ministry of Natural Resources)
Between
Ramon H. Casselman, Plaintiff, and
Her Majesty The Queen, in the Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Natural
Resources, Defendant
[1994] O.J. No. 2180
DRS 94-14785
Action No. 1807/92
Ontario Court of Justice - General Division
Brockville, Ontario
Cosgrove J.
September 12, 1994.
(20 pp.)
Waters ? Navigable waters ? Navigable, what constitutes ? Ownership.
Beds of Navigable Waters Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. B.4, ss. 1, 3. Ontario Rules of Civil
Procedure, Rule
611.
Barry D. Laushway, on behalf of the Plaintiff. Leslie McIntosh and
Elizabeth Christie, on behalf of the Defendant.
COSGROVE J.:?
BACKGROUND:
? 1 The plaintiff claims a declaration that the Hoasic
Creek, insofar as it passes through the lands of the plaintiff herein at Lots 16 through
20, Concession 3 and Township of Williamsburg, County of Dundas, is not a navigable
waterway.
? 2 The key issue between the parties is the
interpretation of S. 1 of the Beds of Navigable Waters Act, Chpt. 04, R.S.O. 1990, which
provides:
1. Where land that borders on a navigable body of water or stream, or on which the whole
or a part of a navigable body of water or stream is situate, or through which a navigable
body of water or stream flows, has been or is granted by the Crown, it shall be deemed, in
the absence of an express grant of it, that the bed of such body of water was not intended
to pass and did not pass to the grantee.
? 3 The question has been 200 years in gestation! The
court is asked to interpret the original Crown grants of the affected property dated as
early as July 16, 1797. Expert zooarchaeological opinion dating from the year 1100 A.D.
was introduced during the trial.
? 4 Hoasic Creek, which begins (or ends) at the St.
Lawrence River very close to the eastern limits of the Village of Morrisburg, has a
mainstream length of 11.3 kilometres (crossing under eight public roads, including Highway
401) and has a watershed of approximately 81 hectares of drainage area. A diagram is
attached to these Reasons illustrating its general location (Exhibit No. 1). The creek is
sometimes identified as Nash Creek or Hoasic/Nash Creek or Hoasic Creek in the evidence.
The most recent district map [See paper copy for illustration of map] published by the
Ministry of Natural Resources (1988) identifies the watercourse by both names (Nash Creek
and Hoasic Creek) and the sign for the creek at the Highway 401 intersection is posted as
Hoasic Creek. The width of the spans in between the abutments of the various bridges
crossing the creek vary from approximately six to 13 metres.
? 5 A Memorandum to File (A. Bosman, Lands Technician,
1981) introduced in evidence provided as follows: (Exhibit A--Tab 15--pp. 105-107)
Subject:
Navigability of Hoasic Creek (Nash Creek), Williamsburg Township, Dundas County
In response to a letter received from the Township of
Williamsburg, Hoasic Creek between Concession 3 and 5 was inspected by A. Bosman, Lands
Technician and R. Sprigings, Conservation Officer on January the 10th, 1981, to determine
the waterways' navigability.
The following guideline was used in making a decision
respecting Hoasic Creek's navigability. A body of water may be administratively decided to
be navigable if it is capable, in its natural state during regular flow conditions, of
accommodating watercraft commonly used for recreational boating or other
significant aquatic transportation purposes."
The following information was collected during the
inspection.
1. Present use of the waterway by watercraft.
2. Capability of use by commercial watercraft.
3. Depth of water at natural and high water levels, width of natural channel type of
bottom, shoreline and beach, physical structures or improvements influencing or impeding
water traffic.
Note: (also that) Since a navigable waterway, although
frozen over, is still technically navigable and the public can travel thereon, winter
travel (over the Hoasic Creek) i.e. snowmobiling, snowshoeing, etc. over Hoasic Creek was
also investigated during the inspection.
Although the inspection was undertaken during freeze
up, information concerning summer conditions was readily available from (informed
sources.) (our C.O.'s) District Conservation Officers and (other) local residents.
The inspection together with our other sources of
information, revealed the following (information) facts about Hoasic Creek.
1. Hoasic Creek is frequently used by small watercraft e.g. canoes, punts, etc. for
fishing and hunting purposes.
2. The creek is not capable of being used nor is it used by commercial watercraft.
3. The creek ranges from 1-3 metres in depth, 6-20 metres in width. The shoreline consists
of cattails, alder and scrub bush. Approximately 4 beaver dams, all in a state of
disrepair, obstruct the waterway, impeding water traffic.
4. Snowmobile trails and tracks possibly made by a trapper were seen during the
inspection.
In view of the above information and the guideline
mentioned earlier, Hoasic Creek (can be) is considered (for administrative purposes in
connection with Ministry Programs) to be a navigable waterway. It must be pointed out that
this decision is based upon opinion and as such could be challenged in the Courts.
(Areas in parentheses were originally written by the author, then crossed and amended.)
? 6 The friction generating this action seeking a
declaration respecting the navigability of Hoasic Creek is clearly illustrated in the
following letter (February 20, 1981) to the Clerk Treasurer of the Township of
Williamsburg from the District Manager, Cornwall District, of the Ministry of Natural
Resources: (Exhibit A--Tab 16--pp. 108-109)
Dear Sir,
This memo will confirm your telephone conversation (Schell - Sprigings) of Feb. 18/81.
With reference to your question on the legality of a land owner prohibiting hunters and
fishermen from travelling over the natural bed of the Hoasic (Nash) Creek. I trust the
following will clear up your concerns. In early January an inspection of the Hoasic Creek
was undertaken by two of our lands and wildlife
staff to determine administratively the navigability of the watercourse. The following
guidelines were used in making a decision respecting the waterway's navigability; "A
body of water may be administratively decided to be navigable if it is capable in its
natural state, during regular flow conditions, of accommodating watercraft commonly used
for recreational boating or other significant aquatic
transportation purposes". A navigable waterway although frozen over is still
technically navigable and the public can travel thereon, i.e.: snowmobiling, snowshoeing
etc. Information concerning open water conditions was readily available from district
Conservation Officers and local residents. In view of the above criteria the Hoasic Creek
is considered to be a navigable watercourse by the Ministry of Natural Resources.
A title search of the third, fourth and fifth concessions of Williamsburg along the Hoasic
creek revealed that the Crown owned bed of the creek was never granted to landowners
adjacent to the creek. With the determination that the Hoasic is navigable and the bed of
such belonging to the crown, private landowners along the creek cannot prohibit entry or
passage on or over the actual bed, but do control trespass upon flooded portions adjacent
to the watercourse.
It must be pointed out that this decision is open to interpretation and as such could be
challenged in the
court.
Yours truly,
J.R. Morin
District Manager
? 7 A letter was sent to the plaintiff on October
4,1990, from the Fish and Wildlife Supervisor in the Cornwall District office of the
defendant as follows: (Exhibit A--Tab 20--pp. 115-116)
Dear Mr. Casselman:
Since your discussion on Saturday, 29 September 1990 with Conservation Officer David
Critchlow, it has come to Mr. Critchlow's attention that the bed of Hoasic Creek has been
determined to be Crown land. A title search of the third, fourth and fifth concessions of
Williamsburg Township along Hoasic Creek revealed that the bed of the creek was never
granted to adjacent landowners. As a result, the bed is considered to be Crown land.
Hoasic Creek has been determined under Ministry policy to be a navigable waterbody. Recent
case law in Ontario (Canoe Ontario v. Julian Reed) has also determined that a waterbody is
considered navigable if, in its natural state, it is capable of being traversed by a large
or small craft. In the case of Hoasic Creek, it is certainly navigable by canoe. Case law
continues to say that navigability does not give persons the right to trespass on private
land to portage around obstacles. However obstacles may be traversed. Navigability is not
restricted by the presence of obstructions - e.g. hydro electric dams.
Further, the creek is considered to be navigable whether by boat on open water, or by snow
machine or snowshoe in winter. Finally, Section 18(2) of the Game and Fish Act prohibits
unauthorized persons from giving notice prohibiting an activity on Crown land.
Yours truly,
Ed McGregor
Fish and Wildlife Supervisor
? 8 A further memorandum from the Stormont-East Dundas
Area Biologist M.N.R., July 28, 1992, sets the stage for this action: (Exhibit A--Tab
25--p. 134)
NAME OF AREA
STORMONT-EAST DUNDAS
NAME OF RIDING
GLENGARRY
NAME OF MEMBER
Mr. Noble Villeneuve
NAME OF ISSUE
NAVIGABILITY AND OWNERSHIP OF HOASIC CREEK
BACKGROUND AND ISSUE DESCRIPTION
Sporadically, over the past several years, individual landowners along Hoasic Creek has
asserted that they have the right to deny access to the creek on the basis that they own
the bed of the creek. It has been the position of the Ministry of Natural Resources that
the creek is navigable under the Beds of Navigable Waters Act. This position is an
administrative interpretation of the Act and the associated case law. The final
determination of navigability of a stream can only be established by the Courts on a
case-by-case basis. Based on our position that the creek is navigable, and given that the
original patents did not expressly grant ownership of the creek bed to the original
landowner, it is our position that the creek bed is Crown Land and that consequently, the
adjacent landowners cannot prevent the public from using the creek itself for various
recreational pursuits such as canoeing or hunting.
Mr. Tolley's assertion regarding the beaver being transplanted into Hoasic Creek is not
verifiable. We have no information that this occurred and no way of finding out. It is not
particularly relevant in any event because beaver were certainly present when the original
patent was issued and the fact that beaver were not present (as alleged) in the 1940's and
that the creek was drier in the summertime, does not alter our contention that the stream
is presently navigable and hence, Crown land. The creek is used extensively by hunters,
snowmobilers and canoeists (at various times of the year). In terms of beaver control
(although this does not seem to be Mr. Tolley's main concern), MNR is already working with
the Township (to facilitate closed season nuisance beaver control) and we are assigning
trappers to the creek during the open season as well. Given that the area is an extremely
large Class 1 wetland which we do not want to see compromised by extensive drainage, we
are of the opinion that the present level of beaver control (attained by our present
efforts) is sufficient.
PROPOSED RESOLUTION, IF ANY
It is not in MNR's interests nor is it appropriate to alter the administrative opinion
that the creek is navigable and therefore Crown land. The final determination of
navigability would have to be made by the courts in an action launched by one or more of
the landowners.
Beaver control should continue to be undertaken as it is now with MNR cooperating with the
Township (during the closed season) and assigning trappers to the area during the open
season.
? 9 Obviously the plaintiff, having been advised by the
defendant that the final determination of navigability of a stream could only be
established by the courts, opted to seek such a determination.
LAW:
? 10 Counsel were in agreement that the key issue
between the parties is the interpretation of Section 1 of the Beds of navigable Waters
Act, Chpt. B4, R.S.O. 1990. I will repeat this section for ease of reference:
1. Where land that borders on a navigable body of water or stream, or on which the whole
or a part of a navigable body of water or stream is situate, or through which a navigable
body of water or stream flows, has been or is granted by the Crown, it shall be deemed, in
the absence of an express grant of it, that the bed of such body of water was not intended
to pass and did not pass to the grantee.
? 11 Counsel agreed as well that there were two aspects
of Section 1 above germane to the determination of the issues between the parties, as
follows:
(i) what is meant by the words, "an express grant of it"?
(ii) what is meant by the word, "navigable"?
? 12 It is only when these words are interpreted in law
that the facts in the case can be examined as to their pertinence (which will be done
under the heading FINDINGS).
(i) "an express grant of it"...
? 13 I accept the argument of counsel for the Ministry
of Natural Resources that use of the word "express" in Section 1 connotes
"particular" as opposed to "general". This distinction is apparent
from earlier cases which examined Section 1 of the Beds of Navigable Waters Act so that
plain, clear and particular identification of the bed of a specific body of water needs to
be located in the Crown grants similar to the exception and the words of the exception in
Section 3 of the Act itself which provides:
3.
This Act does not apply to the bed of the river in Lot 8 in the 6th Concession of the
Township of Merritt in the District of Sudbury.
(ii) "navigable"...
? 14 It is obvious that the interpretation or meaning
attributed to the word "navigable" is not simply hypothetical or of academic
concern to the Ministry of Natural Resources which has a mandate to administer the use of
these lands (and waters above them!). The memoranda and letters which have been quoted
herein illustrate that the administrative
interpretations governing the Ministry's procedures have been closely dependent upon the
case law treating of the issue of navigability. Similarly, the owners of affected property
and the general public have been guided in their use of disputed waterways by the rulings
of the courts.
? 15 A number of circulars distributed within the
Ministry of Natural Resources on the subject of "Navigability of Waterways" were
introduced in evidence for the years of 1976, 1983 and 1992. The 1976 circular described a
water course as navigable if it was capable of use by the public "for purposes of
aquatic transportation and commerce". The May 24, 1983 Bulletin contains the
following introductory paragraphs:
The Reasons for Judgment, released March 1, 1983, by Mr. Justice Henry of the Supreme
Court of Ontario in Coleman and the Attorney General for Ontario et al. provides this
Ministry with some long-awaited modern case law on the subject of navigability of
waterways in Ontario. The Judgment clearly establishes that navigability is both a
question of law and of fact. Navigability, in fact, is demonstrated if a waterway is used
or capable of use by the public as an aqueous highway for activities such as boating,
canoeing, the use of paddle-boats, inflatable rafts, kayaks, white-water canoeing and
rafting, as well as, in winter, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing and snowmobiling. A
waterway which is navigable, in fact, for purposes of transportation or public travel is
navigable in law.
? 16 The Bulletin went on to detail specific criteria
to be considered by local ministry officials in determining "navigability" and
contained in the following instructions:
In cases where data from previous study of a waterway is already on hand, it may be used
if it adequately addresses the new criteria. However, the decision reached must be in
accord with the new case law, regardless of whether or not such decision is contrary to a
previous one.
? 17 The most recent Directive (February 13, 1992) from
the Ministry placed in evidence is a more comprehensive document on the issue of
"navigability" which makes reference to the more recent case of
"navigability", Canoe Ontario et al. v. Reed et al. (1983) 69 O.R. (2d) 494
(which, in turn, relied heavily upon Coleman and the Attorney-General for Ontario et al.).
The instructions to regions in making navigability decisions contained the following:
In order to make a determination of navigability at the date of letters patent,
particularly in older grants, in addition to researching the historical use and physical
characteristics of the waterbody, field staff must research the original patents, original
surveys, and field notes before making an administrative decision on the navigability of a
waterbody. Interpretation of survey plans and field notes should be done in consultation
with Crown Land Surveys Section. If, after having considered the issue of navigability
both under the current situation and at the date of patent, different conclusions of
navigability prevail (e.g. because of artificial improvements or impediments to
navigation; or a drying up of a river bed), Legal Services Branch Staff should be
consulted before developing a Ministry
position...
Navigability is both a question of law and of fact. To be navigable in law, the water
course must be navigable in fact. Navigability in fact is demonstrated if a waterway is
used, or is capable of being used, by the public as an aqueous highway. For a waterway to
be navigable in law, it must have real or potential practical value to the public as a
means of travel or transport, generally from one point of public access to another point
of public access.
? 18 Plaintiff's counsel argued that the so-called
"new" or "modern" approach to navigability in the Coleman and Canoe
decisions is not binding because these decisions where they enlarged or extended the
meaning of "navigability" beyond that contained in earlier jurisprudence
(navigability in Leamy et al. v. The King, 1916, 33 D.L.R., 237, meant that a stream must
be capable of navigation in furtherance of trade and commerce), such extension was
unnecessary or restricted to the facts of those particular decisions with the result that
the comments therein respecting recreational uses are obiter.
? 19 It was also argued by Plaintiff's counsel that the
Coleman and Canoe decisions are not determinative of the issue of navigability because of
the manner in which the issues were placed before the court for adjudication. For example,
in the Coleman case the court was asked for an opinion by way of originating motion based
on affidavits under Rule 611 and no viva voce evidence was called from parties other than
the applicant or Ministry staff (a kinder, gentler process than the trial herein wherein a
number of independent witnesses testified and were subject to cross-examination). It was
urged that the real issue in dispute in the Canoe case was the right of portage by
canoeists across the defendant's property where a dam used for private hydro-electric
generation blocked the Credit River.
? 20 I am unable to agree, with respect, that the
Coleman or Canoe decisions should be so narrowly interpreted or restricted. In the Coleman
et al. and Attorney-General for Ontario et al., 143 D.L.R. (3d) 608 decision, Mr. Justice
Henry in his extensive review and analysis of the development of case law on the subject
of navigability in Ontario distinguishes the common law English basis from that of the law
originating in France which was adopted by the Supreme Court of Canada, but only insofar
as it applied in the Province of Quebec. He says at Page 618:
Under the common law as I see it, navigability for commercial purposes was simply evidence
that the watercourse was navigable in fact; it was not an essential condition of
navigability in law.
? 21 His summary at Page 622 is as follows:
I conclude therefore that if the stream is navigable in fact for the purposes of
transportation or travel, or is floatable, whether for large or small craft of shallow
draft, it is navigable in law without the necessary of applying the test of its usefulness
for trade and commerce, a test which may well have been apt when the country was
developing in the course of settlement, but is now no longer realistic in the light of
modern conditions. I do not believe this does violence to the principles of the common
law. I believe l am not precluded from taking this approach by judicial decisions in
Ontario applicable to Ontario law, and it is consonant with what I regard as the
persuasive authority of the decisions in Ne-Bo-Shone Ass'n Inc. v. Hogarth (1934), 7 F.
Suppl. 885, affirmed 81 F. (2d) 70, and Collins v. Gerhardt, supra. On this view of the
matter I find that Bronte Creek is now and at the time of the Crown grant in 1827 to be
regarded as navigable in law irrespective of its usefulness as a highway for commercial
purposes. (Emphasis Added)
? 22 As regards the process of adjudication in the
Coleman decision, Mr. Justice Henry was himself concerned that the trial of an issue ought
to have been directed. After argument, he reserved judgment and on review requested and
received considerable additional evidence from the parties on the history of Bronte Creek.
Much of the evidence considered by him is the same type of evidence placed before me in
this trial (i.e. historical and current on-site surveys of the stream, maps, photographs
and affidavits of personal experience and observations). He found as well that there was
no issue of credibility, although he said he preferred some areas of evidence by one party
over that of another.
? 23 Similarly, I do not believe that credibility is a
significant issue on the evidence before me; in other words, although there are areas of
evidence which conflict between the plaintiff and witnesses called by him with witnesses
called by the Ministry of Natural Resources, I do not believe these areas are
determinative of the issues for decision.
? 24 As regards the decision of Mr. Justice Doherty in
Canoe Ontario et al. v. Reed et al., 69 O.R. (2d) 494, I am satisfied that he was required
to direct his mind directly to the issue of navigability (in addition to the issue of
portage) with the result that his comments thereon, in my view, are legitimate ratio
decidendi in the decision. Moreover, Mr. Justice Doherty buttresses the analysis by Mr.
Justice Henry at Page 502 where, after a review of Quebec and American authorities, he
states:
I agree with Henry J. in Re Coleman and A.-G. Ont., supra. at p. 622, that commercial
utility is not a sine qua non to navigability, although evidence of commercial use will be
determinative of the question. If the purpose underlying the recognition of a public
interest in certain waterways is analogous to that which recognizes the public interest in
certain highways, then that purpose is not served by limiting navigability to cases
involving commercial usage. A public highway may serve many public purposes other than a
purely commercial one.
? 25 I agree and adopt his words at Page 503:
A distinction between public commercial use and public non-commercial use is also
unrealistic. Many non-commercial uses can readily be turned into commercial endeavours.
This case provides an example. If several individuals, for recreational purposes, canoe
down the river, then their purpose is entirely non-commercial; however, if one individual,
perhaps more experienced than the others, purports to operate a tour down the river and to
charge individuals for canoeing the river with him, then the exact same trip becomes a
commercial endeavour. Navigability should not depend on such personal considerations.
Navigability should depend on public utility. If the waterway serves, or is capable of
serving, a legitimate public interest in that it is, or can be, regularly and profitably
used by the public for some socially beneficial activity, then, assuming the waterway runs
from one point of public access to another point of public access, it must be regarded as
navigable and as within the public domain.
? 26 In his comments, Mr. Justice Doherty cites an
example of how a recreation canoeing outing can be clothed as a commercial endeavour. This
analysis implicitly excludes recreation uses from commercial designation. On the other
hand, most recreation activities inherently have some commercial component (some more than
others) so the distinction between these uses today is tenuous. In other words,
"commerce" in 1795 in Ontario is not the "commerce" of the Ontario of
the 1990's. (I think of the employment in the manufacture, distribution and sale of such
things as canoes, fishing, hunting and sporting equipment and apparel).
FINDINGS:
(i) Express grant of river bed to Hoasic
Creek.
? 27 I have reviewed the various copies of Letters
Patent from the Crown of the lands of the plaintiff through which Hoasic Creek runs in
Concession 2, 3 and 4 of the Township of Williamsburg. These Patents bear dates July 16,
1797, September 1, 1797, March 3, 1808, January 22, 1836, and March 18, 1871. I have had
the opportunity of comparing
the wording of these Patents with those which were studied respecting the Credit River.
? 28 I agree with Ministry counsel that none of these
Patents have wording sufficiently express to exempt the bed of the Hoasic River from Crown
ownership by virtue of Section 1 of the Beds of Navigable Waters Act.
(ii)
Navigability of the Hoasic River ...
(a)
... at the time of Crown Patent beginning July 16, 1797.
? 29 A written report, May 26, 1994, from Staff
Archaeologist C. Andersen of the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation was
introduced into evidence. The author has spent twenty years of archaeological study in
research on the St. Lawrence Iroquoians and other Ontario Iroquoian peoples. His primary
area of research is zooarchaeology, the study of animal bones from archaeological sites.
Rather than attempt to paraphrase the report's findings, I will excerpt some pertinent
sections of his opinion: (Exhibit A--Tab 34--Page 1)
The Steward (BfFt-2) site is located on the west side of the town of Morrisburg, near the
mouth of Stata's Creek, on Lot 31, Concession 1, Williamsburg Township, Ontario. Stata's
Creek is the first creek west, by about 2 km, of Nash/Hoasic Creek. The artifactual and
radiocarbon evidence from the Steward site shows that it was occupied by St. Lawrence
Iroquoian peoples for a period of about 500 years, ending at circa A.D. 1600. The faunal
evidence shows that the site was only occupied on a seasonal basis, in the spring and
fall, and that it served primarily as a fishing station. The primary fish species
exploited were American Eel, Sucker/Redhorse, and Smallmouth Bass. The most important
mammal species utilized by the site's inhabitants were deer and beaver, both of which were
obtained locally and in significant numbers.
(Page 2)
... The St. Lawrence Iroquoian peoples had two main types of settlement:
(1) large inland villages which were occupied on a year-round basis, and
(2) small seasonally-occupied sites which were established for the purposes of exploiting
specific farmal resources, especially fish. Examples of the latter type include the
Steward site at Morrisburg and the Driver's (FeFu-2), east of Johnstown. The main village
sites, such as are represented by the Beckstead (BfFt-1) site, were typically located in
less exposed situations at some distance inland, most commonly on the South National River
or its tributaries.
Travel between the inland villages and the small fishing stations on the St. Lawrence was
accomplished either by foot, via woodland trails, or, most commonly, by canoe, which was
the principal mode of transportation for all Iroquoian peoples. The many rivers, streams
and creeks in the region were the main travel corridors for both the Native Peoples and
the European settlers until well into historic times.
The waterways were the highways on which were carried people, food, and the beaver and
other pelts which were the principal objects of trade between the Native Peoples and the
Europeans.
... The largest and hence most easily navigable northward-flowing creek in the vicinity of
the Steward site is Nash (Hoasic) Creek. Unfortunately, there has never been an
archaeological survey conducted along the banks of that stream and its mouth has been
inundated to a distance of about 500 metres north from its original location. Any
archaeological sites which may be located there are now under as much as 25 feet of water.
As a result, there is currently no information available concerning Native settlement
anywhere along Nash/Hoasic Creek. Nevertheless, on the basis of the presence of sites at
the mouths of Stata's, Flagg, and Driver's creeks, all smaller streams, it is my
considered opinion that similar St. Lawrence Iroquoian sites were present on Nash/Hoasic
Creek and that substantial archaeological sites may yet be found on its banks. It is my
opinion that Nash/Hoasic Creek would have served as a major thoroughfare by means of which
the local St. Lawrence Iroquoian peoples would have travelled to and from the hinterlands
to the north. Certainly there is zooarchaeological evidence to suggest that the
inhabitants of the Steward site were aware of and made good use of Nash/Hoasic and its
resources. (Emphasis Added)
Zooarchaeological analyses of the animal bones recovered from Steward and Beckstead show
that beaver were very well represented at both sites, as they are at all other St.
Lawrence Iroquoian sites for which such analyses have been completed. Among the other
species represented in the Steward site were relatively large quantities of Smallmouth
Bass. Nash/Hoasic Creek is the only stream on this" part of the St. Lawrence into
which Smallmouth Bass enter in large numbers during the spring spawning season. In order
to have caught this species in the significant numbers present in the Steward site fannal
assemblage, the inhabitants of the Steward site must have been exploiting the Nash/Hoasic
spawning
run.
? 30 Exhibits No. 14 and No. 15 in the trial which were
copies of a Survey Plan and assessment map for the Williamsburg Township dated January 15,
1795, recorded the Hoasic Creek for the first time. A Report and Field Notes, 1938, by
N.B. MacRostie, O.L.S., records the early chronology of official surveys of the District
of Williamsburg from 1785. Narrative and plan sketches therein identify the Hoasic Creek
from these earliest records. The chronology of record of the Creek was continued through
the evidence of a plan of survey showing the land division of the lands in Concessions I
to V through which the Hoasic Creek ran taken from the Illustrated Historical Atlas of the
Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry dated 1879. Hoasic Creek is said to have been
named by united Empire Loyalists who initially settled its environs. There is nothing in
the evidence to refute the continuous use of the river at least for canoes or small craft
from the time of its earliest recording in 1795 to modern times.
(b) ... navigability of the Hoasic Creek today.
? 31 A Navigability Report of the Hoasic Creek,
Williamsburg Township, St. Lawrence River to Concession V, prepared by Jim Cameron, June,
1993, was very helpful to me in determining the nature of the Hoasic Creek today. This
Report follows a format prepared by Ministry officials on the issue of navigability of the
Credit River. The use of this common format is useful not only as a diagnostic or
analytical tool in assessing the Hoasic Creek, but also as a quick comparison, for
example, to the study of the Credit River.
? 32 The Report organizes information on the Creek
under the following headings: Introduction; Physical Description; Creek Data Chart;
Existing uses; Past Uses; Summary. The Report also contains a List of Illustrations
including Photographs (30), Resource Mineral Survey Map, Topographic Map showing Stream
Measurements and Wetland Boundaries and various additional topographic maps together with
the earlier Survey Report and field Notes of 1938.
? 33 The author of the Report, Mr. Cameron, testified
at the trial that he prepared the initial draft of the report which was subsequently
edited by legal counsel for the defendant. He was cross-examined extensively on the
Report, but l am satisfied that the Report substantially presents an accurate assessment
of the characteristics of the Hoasic Creek today. The Report contains the following
comments under the heading, "Existing Uses": (Exhibit 12--Tab 1--Page 5)
The Wetlands
The Creek provides an important recreational activity for waterfowl hunters and
naturalists seeking access to the Wetland upstream. The Wetland was designated as a
provincially significant wetland on or about 1986, when the Ministry determined that it
was large in size (4,088 hectares), contained a great variety of fish and wildlife
habitats, as well as vegetation communities. The Wetland is important for waterfowl
production and migration, supports provincially significant wildlife species, and is a
wintering area for wildlife. Moreover, the Wetland the Creek act as a spawning area for
numerous fish species, and contributes substantial social and economic benefits to its
users. Waterfowl hunters and naturalists use the Creek to access the Wetland throughout
the spring, summer and autumn.
The St. Lawrence River The Creek empties into the St. Lawrence River, which is another
significant point of public access. Canoes and other small water craft use the Creek for
recreation and access to the St. Lawrence River.
In the last several years, a small local group of canoeists have navigated the Creek from
Road 18 to the St. Lawrence River. This sport is limited by the depth of the water during
the summer months.
In addition, Ministry staff have regularly observed waterfowl hunters using canoes during
the fall in Concessions 3, 4, and 5. Ministry staff have also traversed the length of the
Creek by canoe over the last ten years.
? 34 The photographs included in the Report are
impressive pictorial support for the text above. In addition, I was similarly assisted
with a video presentation taken on a canoe trip from County Road 18 (the northern limit of
Hoasic Creek) to the St. Lawrence River, where the Hoasic empties its waters.
? 35 The use of the Hoasic Creek by canoeists, whether
for boating pleasure, hunting or fishing was confirmed by all the witnesses who testified
during the trial. Evidence by some witnesses was to the effect that canoes had been used
on the Hoasic Creek for generations, especially during the spring high water run-off.
? 36 Evidence of aerial maps of the Hoasic Creek were
introduced at the trial (photographed during the summers of 1951, 1971 and 1992) which
illustrated the consistency of the creek bed location over those decades. In addition, the
court was shown two aerial videos taken of the entire length of Hoasic Creek, one filmed
in July, 1992, and the other in
May, 1994.
? 37 I alerted counsel at the beginning of the trial
that there was the potential for me to conduct a view of the Hoasic Creek where it crossed
the plaintiff's property. The evidence of the various witnesses during the trial (for both
parties), including the maps, photographs and videos, made a view unnecessary. Obviously,
the Hoasic Creek by comparison to the material provided describing the Credit River is a
smaller, slower and shallower water course. Nonetheless, the evidence plainly illustrates
that it is an aqueous highway, especially for canoes, for five to eight weeks during the
spring run-off and for hunting for a number of weeks in the fall.
CONCLUSION:
? 38 Some weeks after I had reserved my judgment
herein, defendant's counsel sent me a copy of the judgment in Dobson v. Tulloch, 17 O.R.
(3d) 533, a recent decision of this court dated March 15, 1994. The trial judge at Page
543 therein appears to return to the earlier notions of "commercial" use in
defining the meaning of navigability. Unfortunately,
counsel in the Dobson v. Tulloch decision did not bring the Canoe or Coleman decisions to
the court's attention (this is acknowledged by the judge at Page 543). Absent this
reference to the Canoe or Coleman decisions, I do not believe the decision on the issue of
"navigability" is binding or detracts from my interpretation of the law herein.
? 39 As a result of my findings and interpretation of
"navigability" in Section 1 of the Beds of Navigable Waters Act, the part of the
Hoasic Creek which runs through the plaintiff's property was a public or navigable
waterway in 1759 and continues as a public or navigable waterway today, with the result
that the plaintiff's request for a declaration to the contrary is dismissed.
? 40 May I have submissions on costs in writing within
30 days.
? 41 ORDER ACCORDINGLY.
COSGROVE J.
QL Update: 941014
qp/s/mes/mrr/DRS/DRS
Click here to get back to Erhard's Home Page
Click here to get to Paddling Legal Issues Page