SURVEY REPORT

PURSUANT TO AN APPLICATION UNDER THE BOUNDARIES ACT

REGARDING THE INVESTIGATION OF THE LIMITS THE LANDS DESIGNATED AS Lot 3, LOT 2 & lot 4
WITHIN LOT 8, CONCESSION 8 IN THE GEOGRAPHIC TOWNSHIP OF TWISTED

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.) INTRODUCTION
2.) RESEARCH
3.) HISTORICAL AND TITLE REVIEW OF THE LANDS
4.) PRIOR SURVEYS
5.) SUMMARY and CONCLUSIONS
INTRODUCTION

The applicants Thomas Vincent and Ink Marek are the registered owners of the lands designated as Lot 3 ,of
Registered plan of subdivision XXXX .This report will review the location of the boundary between the lands
designated as Lot 3 and the lands designated as Lot2 , Lot and Wet lake situated at south . All three parcels are
located within the boundaries of Twisted Township Lot 8, Concession 8. The boundaries under consideration are all
on the interior of the Township Lot 8 and are illustrated on the accompanying Plan of Survey. It has to be noted the
primary purpose of this application is defining boundary due to the Accretion of repatriation right and to The beds
of Navigable Waters Act( BNWA) of 1911 and consequent amendments in 190 and 1951.The boundary
adjustments are only for the excess land derived from above said scenario. Throughout the report I shall refer to the
boundaries and corners individually and severally by the points labelled "A" through "K" on this plan.

RESEARCH

In order to investigate the boundaries, research was undertaken and documents were gathered from public agencies
and private surveyors in the vicinity. This included: -the Land Registry Office in Kinston, Ontario -Service
Management Section of the Ministry of Natural Resources -Peterborough .AAAA Limited Limited-Ontario Land
Surveyors . Each company or agency was contacted by telephone. If they had no information they would indicate so.
If they had information I asked for an appointment to attend at their office to review the file(s) and obtain the
records. In order to ensure that no information was overlooked I requested an additional search by written
transmittal. Copies of the replies are included. In addition internet on-line sources were checked for information
with regard to apportionment of Apportioning the Accretion with regard to Riparian lots.

HISTORICAL AND TITLE REVIEW OF THE LANDS

This section of the Township of Twisted was first surveyed in 1875. From 1880to 1990, between 5 to 15 years later
of Township survey, the lot from which the present lot in the application was subdivided and including broken lots
and partial portions that appear to include remnant parts along the shore of Wet Lake were patented or granted from
the Crown. It is taken for granted that boundary along the west Lake is the edge of the water , as per the accepted
policy that Any Crown patent which indicates that one of the boundaries of the lands granted is to be a boundary of
water. It establishes that boundary as at the waters edge and not upon any bank or high water Mark.

In 1943, Mr. Bartley ,the owner, of Lot 8, Concession VIII subdivided the property by plan of subdivision. Metal
posts are located at all of the lot corners for the lots that appear on this plan. A copy of the plan of subdivision
appears in Figure 2 and is signed by an Ontario Land Surveyor. Metal posts are located at all of the lot corners for
the lots that appear.
Mr. Bartley sold the lot No 3 of this subdivision to Mr CCCCCC in 1943. Mr CCC sold the above lot 3 to Mr
DDDDDD in 2015. Due to the effect of amendments of BNWA in 1951, the eastern boundary was extended to water
edge of West Lake. In addition to this due to lowering of water level accretion was also incurred The boundaries
under review are in the east of original east boundary as depicited the subdivision of 193.of adjacent to Wet lake.

The principle of the accretion process is that it is natural, slow and imperceptible from moment to moment. It only
becomes the subject of attention when its cumulative effect becomes big enough to make a difference. Once the fact
of accretion is settled by the concurrence of the adjoining owner of the bed, or a court decision, it is already part of
the title, and it acquires the legal characteristics of the land to which it is added.
Accretion of land is of two types: one called "alluvion" where "sand and earth are washed up by the sea or a river so
as to make an addition to existing land" andthe other called "dereliction" where "land is left dry by the water
retracing below the usual height

Responsibility of the surveyor.

Bearing in mind that the surveyor does not make boundaries, there has to be some give and take in survey
requirements; measure for measure needs to be balanced by dollar for dollar. The rights of title of riparian property
should not be translated into an unrealistic and extremely costly exercise in futile measurements.

Any Crown patent which indicates that one of the boundaries of the lands granted is to be a boundary of water. It
establishes that boundary as at the waters edge and not upon any bank or high water Mark.

Ontario properties fronting on large lakes extend to the waters edge by operation of the original

Crown grants. In the early decades of this Province, transportation over land was difficult.

Roads were few and, indeed, impassable for much of the year. For transportation and communication reasons, water
frontage was of fundamental importance to settlers when lands were originally patented by the Crown Lands
Department.

For many decades the Ontario Department of Lands and Forests (and the successor Ministry of Natural Resources),
contrary to well-established common law, vigorously promoted the use of high water mark(meaning the landward
side of the beach) as the boundary separating patented uplands from lands forming the bed of the adjoining water
body. On the basis of that notion, the beaches were considered by Crown officers to be part of the bed of the
adjoining water body and, therefore, un alienated Crown lands, except where a water lot had been granted. The
concept was raised to the status of legislation as part of an omnibus bill in 1940 (Statute Law Amendment Act, S.O.
1940, c.28) but was found to be unworkable and was repealed in 1951 by the Beds of Navigable Waters Amendment
Act, S.O.1951, c.5.

Courts have been consistent in applying the common law rule placing the boundaries of inland non-tidal riparian
properties at the waters edge. The principle was confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Attorney-General
for Ontario v. Walker. Any Crown patent which indicates that one of the boundaries of the lands granted is to be a
boundary of water, then it establishes that boundary as at the water's edge and not upon any bank or high water mark
unless, of course, the grant clearly reserves by description or otherwise a space between the lands granted and the
water boundary or unless the boundaries of the lot can be so clearly delineated by reference to an original plan of
survey as to clearly except or reserve to the Crown a space between the lands granted and the water's edge.

Apportioning the Accretion by Survey

The big challenge for surveyor was to resolve the overlapping claims to the "new" lands and find the fairest way of
dividing it.The General principle is land should be equitably divided between riparian owners. In dividing the
accretion among the various riparian owners on the same side of the body of water, the objective is to do so with
equity and justice to each owner.
Two primary factors must be considered in making the equitable distribution.
Owners shall have an equal share, in proportion to their lands, of the area of the newly formed
land.
Make sure that each owners has access to the water with an equal share of the new waterline in
proportion to his share on the old line of the water.

All courts that have been called upon to decide the ownership and division of accretion have subscribed to the
doctrine of equity and justice.

The four basic methods formulated to achieve equity and justice among the various claimants are:

1. The proportionate shoreline method

2. The perpendicular method, also used in the broad sense to include radial lines on curves.

3. The prolongation of the property line method

4. The proportionate acreage method

The proportionate shoreline method is to apportion the new frontage along the water boundary in the same ratio as
that along the line of the old water boundary.

Certain modifications may be required under particular circumstances where peninsulas or bays would make strict
apportionment inequitable. A beginning and ending point for apportionment may have to be established by one of
the other methods before the affected land can be apportioned.

The second preference is the perpendicular method whereby a line is drawn from the boundary termination point on
the original shoreline perpendicular to the new shoreline.

The prolongation of the property line method is simply to prolong the property lines until they reach the edge of the
water. This method is rarely used.

The proportionate acreage method. This method is used where the accreted land is more valuable than the
waterfront. In this method contiguous riparian owners each take their proportionate share of the accreted land based
on the total extent of their front lines, related to the total quantity of accreted land to be divided.
6.) SUMMARY and CONCLUSIONS
At present the area is relatively undeveloped with simple cottages having been built. However, there is
likely to be a significant increase in the value of all of the property due to of much local activity as a result
of plausible gold search. There is also one dock into Wet Lake. The dock is used by my client and family
and the immediate prior owner who sold Lot 3 to your client has also used this dock after having built it
some 15 years ago.