Latest news with #landdispute
CBC
3 days ago
- Politics
- CBC
Throwback: Oka, 35 years after the standoff
This year marks the 35th anniversary of the Oka Crisis, a land dispute between the Mohawks of Kanesatake and the town of Oka, Que. In a violent conflict that began on July 11, 1990, and lasted more than two months, the Mohawks protested against the town of Oka's plans to build a golf course on land that included an Indigenous burial ground.
CBC
04-07-2025
- CBC
The sign says Saugeen Beach but a Supreme Court of Canada challenge looms in land dispute
Social Sharing The day lawyers submitted paperwork to the Supreme Court of Canada, another group quietly set up ladders in the dead of night to change a sign symbolic in a decades-long legal dispute in an Ontario beach town. The red retro-lettered sign at the end of Main Street in the town of South Bruce Peninsula read "Welcome to Saugeen Beach" when sun seekers woke up on Canada Day this week to look out at Lake Huron. The sign had previously ushered people to "Sauble Beach," a tourist hotspot since the 1920s. Sporting restaurants and cottages, and town and private land are squeezed between two sections of reserve territory belonging to Chippewas of Saugeen First Nation. Where one starts and the other ends is at the heart of what could be a precedent-setting case in Canada. The band declared victory at the end of 2024 when the Ontario Court of Appeal sided with Saugeen First Nation, saying the federal government had breached the treaty it signed in 1854. It ruled that roughly 2.2 kilometres of shoreline land incorrectly surveyed in 1855 should be returned to the First Nation. The federal government recognized the mistake in the 1970s and had supported the First Nation in its claim. But lawyers working for the Town of South Bruce Peninsula and two families who bought lots in the 1940s and '50s are trying via legal avenues, one final time, to keep hold of the land they say they rightfully acquired under the rules and geography of the time. On Monday, they filed an appeal they hope will be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada, in an effort to challenge the Appeal Court's decision. "The effect of the rulings at trial and on appeal is to dispossess the town and families of their title, which they acquired lawfully and in good faith," the appeal filing reads. "While none of them were found to have committed any legal wrong against Saugeen, the trial judge found that they must 'bear the brunt' of misconduct committed by the Crown alone." The lawyers argue that the judge's decision may have been well-intentioned, but it sows uncertainty and unpredictability at the core of Canada's system of private landholding. Environmental changes to shoreline Another reason the case may wind its way to Canada's top court has to do with what the land looked like when it was surveyed in 1856, one year after the treaty was signed, compared to what it looks like today. Experts who testified in the lower court agreed that the shoreline of the disputed section is far wider now, as result of receding water levels and the accumulation of sand. It means that the man tasked with drawing the original lines for the treaty 170 years ago that gave the First Nation "about nine miles and a half of Lake Huron coastline" was making his mark on wet sand, and not dry land. Because of how the map was drawn, and how the shoreline has changed, Saugeen argues that what is now dry land is rightfully theirs and that property owners are encroaching on it. The trial and appeal judges both agreed that while the "disputed beach could not be given to Saugeen at the time of the survey because it was submerged in water, it could be declared part of the reserve today." CBC News has reached out to all of the lawyers and the town for comment, but had not received a reply by publication time. The chief of Saugeen First Nation declined to comment on the case. A spokesperson with the Supreme Court of Canada said there is no timeline on when a decision will be made about whether the case will be heard or dismissed.
BBC News
19-06-2025
- BBC News
Bomere Heath homeowners fear their gardens will be bulldozed
A group of neighbours have said builders developing the field behind their homes are threatening to pull down their fences and take up to a third of their of Percy Thrower Avenue in Bomere Heath in Shropshire received a letter from the company, stating they had illegally encroached on land that did not belong to Alex Titley said Land Registry documents showed that was not true and that they would call the police if their properties were damaged.A spokesperson for the landowner, Housing Plus Group, said it would "work with all parties to reach an amicable and fair resolution". The letter from Housing Plus's contractors, J. Harper and Sons of Leominster, was dated 21 May, and gave the homeowners 28 days to remove their own belongings "before taking action to remove the encroachment".It warned no responsibility would be taken for the condition of materials removed, and concluded "there is no legal duty on the landowner to reinstate" the fence on the new line. 'Sanctuary' Mrs Titley said the landowner wanted to take 2.5m off her 8m garden. If this happened, she said she would lose two trees and have to move her shed, pots and garden ornaments after nearly 20 years living on the close."It's my sanctuary", she said, her "peaceful place" at a time when she had been struggling with her daughter's health. She said: "The anxiety this has caused is unbelievable. To think these people think they can just wade in and demand a quarter of it when it is inside our registered boundary is absurd." Neighbour Jonathan Kessel-Fell said: "We have been looking after the boundary, which is on their deeds, for 20 years."We're all in really busy jobs and our gardens are our sanctuary." He said the fences were due to be taken down any time from Wednesday - 28 days since the letters were sent - but he had been told by the developer that this would not happen while the legal dispute was going on."We're not against the houses being built, we just want a conversation with the construction company and the landowner." 'Completely mistaken' Solicitors Lanyon Bowdler, acting for the residents, said legal documents demonstrated the landowner's view that the boundary was inaccurate was "completely mistaken". "The boundary fences have been there for 20 years. They are in the right place and even if they were not in 2004, over time they have become the boundary," the company wrote.A Housing Plus Group spokesperson said: "We are aware of the concerns raised by residents on Percy Thrower Avenue regarding the ongoing land issue. "We understand that this situation has caused uncertainty, we will work with all parties to reach an amicable and fair resolution." Follow BBC Shropshire on BBC Sounds, Facebook, X and Instagram.
Daily Mail
01-06-2025
- Health
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE Care home SLAMS Martha's Vineyard millionaire for 'stopping seniors from enjoying the beach'
A care home on Martha's Vineyard has slammed a millionaire homeowner for allegedly gatekeeping a beach from its elderly and disabled residents. Melinda Loberg, a longtime resident of the famed Massachusetts island, filed a lawsuit against Havenside - a non-profit corporation affiliated with the Island's Episcopal Churches and the Diocese of Boston - on May 12. Havenside is a senior living facility that sits just behind Loberg's $5 million waterfront home - but a fierce legal war was launched after elderly residents were allegedly crossing into the homeowner's land to get to Vineyard Haven Harbor. The care home, however, argues that they have always had a right to use the 13-foot corridor on the north side of her land to gain access to the beach. Now, Lucinda Kirk, the property manager of Havenside Corporation, told that Loberg's lawsuit is just 'a land grab against island seniors.' The majority of Havenside's residents are disabled and elderly - and they deserve to 'enjoy the many health benefits of salt air and serenity,' she said. In the suit, Loberg claimed that when she bought the home in 1992 she was never told about the easement access that the seniors allegedly have - triggering the neighborhood dispute last month. Fighting back, Kirk told 'The lawsuit that our neighbors filed should be seen for what it is: A land grab against Island Seniors. She has lived at her $5 million idyllic home on Crocker Avenue with her husband since July 1992. Havenside has since told Loberg its residents have a right to use a small path on her property to get to the water. (her property is circled in red on the left, and the senior home is circled on the right) 'The Lobergs want to incorporate our easement into their beach-front property, apparently without any care how that will affect Havenside's 36 Residents. 'Our neighbors are attempting to outspend us in legal proceedings to grab our land with bogus legal claims.' Many of Havenside's residents don't just live in the apartments for affordable housing, but also 'have mobility disabilities and/or chronic health conditions,' the spokeswoman added. Kirk added: 'The land of Havenside has an appurtenant easement which provides beach access for our Seniors. It is the safest and easiest way for our Residents to enjoy the many health benefits of salt air and serenity. 'The issue at stake for Havenside is not about money, but preserving safe and equal access to the beach for our senior Residents.' The legal filing went on to state that any access rights were taken away before Havenside took over its property. Loberg also emphasized that she has been using the land for 30 years which voids the corporation's past claims to it. Havenside said that information is false and that it has had an easement there since 1890, the Vineyard Gazette reported. The specific area that the senior center is claiming to control is a space that the Loberg's 'cleared the existing vegetation' from, along with 'removed tires, bottles, car mats, and large chunks of macadam and then planted Parcel 2A with grass,' the documents read. Following the cleanup, the couple decided to install a 170-foot fence along the area in question - cutting off access for more than two decades, the lawsuit stated. Havenside said they planned to gain access to the beach by cutting the grass between the fence and garden beds to construct an entry gate, the filing continued. After informing Loberg of its plans, the corporation sent a tenant by the name of Frank Rapoza over to the property, 'carrying tools,' so he could 'install' the fence, per the lawsuit. Tensions quickly rose when Loberg saw him standing in her driveway ready to get to work, so much so that she threatened to call the police if he attempted to install the gate. With that, Rapoza fled the property, but soon after Loberg received a phone call from him 'threatening to return and install the gate,' the lawsuit detailed. 'In response to this phone call, Plaintiff installed a "No Trespass" sign on the Property line near the Havenside Property,' it added. A manager with Havenside then reached out to Loberg and stated that Rapoza 'was not an agent of Havenside or its Board. Any representation otherwise has never been authorized.' Loberg, a former Tisbury select board member, chose to sit down with Havenside on July 14, 2024 to talk about the issue, but 'representatives were not inclined to discuss alternative solutions and instead insisted upon the existence of the purported access easement,' her lawsuit read. Later that month, the corporation offered to 'remove' the easement in exchange for 'a cash payment,' but Loberg denied the 'extortive offer.' By October of that year, Havenside filed a Wetlands Protection Act Notice of Intent (NOI) with the local Conservation Commission 'seeking approval to make improvements on Plaintiff's Property within the alleged Access Easement,' the lawsuit said. In that filing, 'Havenside falsely claimed to be the owner of the Property, failing to accurately fill out Section 3 requiring them to list the Property Owner if different from the applicant,' it went on. In February, the Loberg's said they 'discovered a group from Havenside, including Mr. Rapoza, trespassing on Plaintiff's Property and in the process of cutting Plaintiff's Fence in order to install a gate.' Loberg then called the police who asked the group to vacate, but 'declined' to forcibly remove them, noting that it was a 'civil matter.' The lawsuit also included an image of Rapoza, an alleged 'manager of Havenside,' and unknown person 'destroying a section of Plaintiff's Fence and installing the gate.' A police report was also filed in relation to the incident. 'Mr. Rapoza subsequently returned and finished installing the Gate,' the lawsuit said, adding that Havenside has since added signage to the entrance of Loberg's property stating that residents are allowed to use that as an access point to the beach. Loberg 'feels harassed and threatened by the conduct of Havenside's tenants and does not feel safe on her Property as a result of their conduct,' the filing concluded. She has demanded that 'Havenside, its guests, tenants and invitees' are not allowed to access her property and that it does not benefit from any easement over the Plaintiff's Property for the purpose of accessing Vineyard Haven Harbor.' An initial hearing was held on May 20 and the next is set for June 16, according to documents. Kirk said Havenside is working on obtaining a pro bono lawyer to fight for residents to gain access to the waterfront.
Daily Mail
16-05-2025
- Daily Mail
Star of Storage Hunters fined after driving his BMW at a woman in her 70s - in a dispute over land he wanted to build on
A star of Storage Hunters has been fined after being found guilty of driving his BMW at a woman in her 70s in a dispute over land. Daniel Hill, 43, known as 'Dapper Dan' on the reality TV series, was caught on CCTV driving his car towards the woman in the small village of Haslingfield, Cambridgeshire on March 9 last year. He appeared to drive at speed and then braked heavily, coming to an abrupt stop just in front of her on Badcock Road. The TV star, from Marham, King's Lynn, was sentenced at Cambridge Magistrates' Court on May 6. He was given nine points on his licence after being found guilty of driving without due care and attention. He must also pay a £660 fine. PC Lazaro, from the South Cambs Neighbourhood Team, who investigated, said: 'There has been an ongoing dispute over land in Haslingfield. 'Hill deliberately used his car in a threatening manner. His driving fell far below that of a reasonable and competent driver. It's fortunate that the victim was not crashed into and injured as a result.' It comes after Hill acquired a plot of land in Badcock Road, which had been gardened by a woman in her 70s and her husband for 40 years, in November 2023. He bought it - along with a second piece of land - for £18,000 at an auction of assets of the original estate developer who had gone into liquidation. Hill, who appeared in all five UK series of Storage Hunters from 2014 to 2016 as a 'main buyer,' said at the time that he had 'done the deal of the century'. He also claimed the local residents should have 'stuck their hand in their pocket' if they wanted the land. Hill later claimed the villagers had been trying to drive him away and accused them of 'harassing' him and 'causing criminal damage' to his property. But the residents said he had been 'terrorising' them with his heavy handed behaviour. Hill was arrested and bailed by Cambridgeshire Police in December 2023, accused of harassment, criminal damage and common assault, but was released at the beginning of March last year without charge. He then removed a silver birch, which had a Tree Preservation Order, and submitted plans for a house on his land. Neighbours inundated Cambridge Shared Planning with letters of objection, complaining it would be 'overdevelopment of the area,' as well as lead to 'loss of light'. They also argued it would pose a safety risk to pedestrians and vehicles as it is on a bend. In March last year, Hill was denied planning permission because officers said the site was of an 'insufficient size' and in an 'inappropriate location.' They added: 'The introduction of any dwelling on the site would result in an undesirable form of cramped and contrived development in a prominent location that would be out of keeping with the character and appearance of the area and would give rise to harm to the amenities of neighbouring properties.' Over the last year Hill has been spotted back at the site, dumping dozens of tyres around his land to prevent people accessing it and burning hedge cuttings. In December 2023 Mr Hill said: 'I saw this cheap bit of land at auction. That's how I make my money, I buy stuff cheap and try to make a profit on it. 'Originally I thought it was one of those things where it would go crazy money, it's a beautiful village here. I was watching the auction and it landed around the £5,000 to £6,000 mark and I thought, I've got to have some of this. 'I started bidding and got it for £12,000, obviously there are fees on top, happy days, I actually thought I'd done the deal of the century. I was really happy with it. 'I come down here. I did all my research before. I thought there's planning policy, support planning in the area, there's no TPO's, turned up here and started cutting the trees down, then wham all the villagers came out, almost like with their pitchforks and their angry faces, 'no, no, no, you can't have this land.' 'I said, 'sorry I've bought it', I couldn't really understand what the problem was and ever since then they have been sour pusses. They didn't buy it. I'm not going to buy any tears, this is not a poor area. 'You've got accountants, bankers, all kids of very wealthy people here. If they wanted the land they should have bought it.'
