Toronto Ravine Strategy

[Northern Light]

Thanks for this. I will have a closer look when I return home.

The comparison with the Bruce is not totally fair as the Bruce had about a 50 year head start on the project. But I think a lot less ‘public’ land to begin with. But still, encouraging news on the Rouge, and to be commended.

I am always reluctant to endorse expropriation where functioning agricultural, industrial, commercial, residential and even recreational (golf for instance) uses are in place. (Who wants there land expropriated for a road allowance?). But given that, one also has to recognize a higher public purpose, whether that be transit or public trails. And where moral suasion cannot come into play, which the Bruce has used to good effect in many cases to gain agreement and access for the trail, then other means will need to be examined at some point, most possibly through the mechanism of parklands.

I have been thinking for some time that the Escarpment needs greater protections, especially from ‘estate’ housing, and an expansion of designated ‘park’ lands would help in this area As the urban and nearby populations continue to grow, access to recreation will as well. Growing the Bruce as a park is something that should not be overlooked, as is the Rouge, and our other watersheds. These all offer locations potential for continued development os areas of recreational use, as much as the waterfront along the lake holds.

And then we can talk about farmland trusts……

Thanks for your information.

Aside from the southern portion of the trail intersecting the GTA, the Bruce is a bit of a Tangent......

Still.

I will offer that I have advocated for a significant expansion of Shorthills Provincial Park through which the Bruce passes, from ~660ha to 1400ha (just over 1500 acres to just over 3,100 acres)

I have also identified to the Ministry 4 other locations along the trail for expanding existing or creating new provincial parks.

Expanding the National Park at the top of the peninsula should also be a priority, it was originally intended to be more than double the size, going south to Lion's Head.

There was local opposition to this at the time, and they ended up scaling back the park.

A lot of the land is crown land, and much remains forest. Select removal of a few private parcels/camps; one of which would become a major second campground to relieve Cyprus Lake would be welcome.

 

[just east of the creek]

Aside from the southern portion of the trail intersecting the GTA, the Bruce is a bit of a Tangent......

Still.

I will offer that I have advocated for a significant expansion of Shorthills Provincial Park through which the Bruce passes, from ~660ha to 1400ha (just over 1500 acres to just over 3,100 acres)

I have also identified to the Ministry 4 other locations along the trail for expanding existing or creating new provincial parks.

Expanding the National Park at the top of the peninsula should also be a priority, it was originally intended to be more than double the size, going south to Lion's Head.

There was local opposition to this at the time, and they ended up scaling back the park.

A lot of the land is crown land, and much remains forest. Select removal of a few private parcels/camps; one of which would become a major second campground to relieve Cyprus Lake would be welcome.

Expanding Shorthills would be great, expanding the national park within the Bruce would be great as well. Perhaps the old Algonquin Park model where certain existing cottages, lodges ran on in time until ownership change due to the passage of time and the park ‘assumed’ the land. My memories of the details are a little sketchy, but if one knew where to look, structures could be seen (Not including the existing and ongoing logging operations) .

There is a fair amount of farming, mainly cattle and feed corn scattered through the farmable areas of the Bruce. Climate change is assisting in better yearly results, some outside investment has / is coming in. Looked at jumping in a few years back but have not done so as yet.

First Nations have some significant holding as well and some form of partnership could or should be explored, assuming interest in doing so.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Yesterday I decided to take a walk up Parliament over the viaduct and instead of my usual walk down Broadview back to home I walked the wooded path behind CALC crossing the pedestrian bridge over the Bloor St. on-ramp to the DVP, and along the fence line to the green pedestrian bridge over the DVP and then up Riverdale Farm and home. What struck me was the size of the squat in the woods behind the Riverdale Park East swimming pool. There must have been a dozen structures. Does the city have any rules against encampments in its ravines? And can squatting impact adverse possession? If the city knows people have set up house on public land, can it lose its title to that land?

Understanding Squatters Rights in Canada: Dealing with Squatters

Learn how squatters rights work in Canada, including provincial laws, prevention strategies, and legal steps to protect your property. Discover how Bella Staging helps homeowners reduce squatting risks with smart, proactive solutions.

www.bellastaging.ca

EDIT: I checked the relevant ON laws, and it looks like the government had the same concern for Crown Land.

Crown land management policies

Read the policies and procedures that guide the day-to-day and long-term management of Crown lands (excluding provincial parks and conservation reserves).

www.ontario.ca

Note: In 2021, we made changes to Section 17 of the Public Lands Act. The changes to the Act mean it is no longer possible to acquire title to public lands through adverse possession.

However, most ravines and public parks within the City of Toronto are not Crown land, and appear to be at risk of adverse possession through squatters' encampments. Mind, the squatters must be there for a decade.

Fences, Parks, and Possession: Supreme Court Defines the Limits of Adverse Possession in Ontario - Nelligan Law

The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Kosicki v. Toronto clarifies that municipal parkland in Ontario is not immune from adverse possession.

nelliganlaw.ca

"In a landmark ruling, the Court confirmed that municipal parkland is not automatically protected from claims of adverse possession."

 

[Northern Light]

Yesterday I decided to take a walk up Parliament over the viaduct and instead of my usual walk down Broadview back to home I walked the wooded path behind CALC crossing the pedestrian bridge over the Bloor St. on-ramp to the DVP, and along the fence line to the green pedestrian bridge over the DVP and then up Riverdale Farm and home. What struck me was the size of the squat in the woods behind the Riverdale Park East swimming pool. There must have been a dozen structures. Does the city have any rules against encampments in its ravines? And can squatting impact adverse possession? If the city knows people have set up house on public land, can it lose its title to that land?

Understanding Squatters Rights in Canada: Dealing with Squatters

Learn how squatters rights work in Canada, including provincial laws, prevention strategies, and legal steps to protect your property. Discover how Bella Staging helps homeowners reduce squatting risks with smart, proactive solutions.

www.bellastaging.ca

EDIT: I checked the relevant ON laws, and it looks like the government had the same concern for Crown Land.

Crown land management policies

Read the policies and procedures that guide the day-to-day and long-term management of Crown lands (excluding provincial parks and conservation reserves).

www.ontario.ca

Note: In 2021, we made changes to Section 17 of the Public Lands Act. The changes to the Act mean it is no longer possible to acquire title to public lands through adverse possession.

However, most ravines and public parks within the City of Toronto are not Crown land, and appear to be at risk of adverse possession through squatters' encampments. Mind, the squatters must be there for a decade.

Fences, Parks, and Possession: Supreme Court Defines the Limits of Adverse Possession in Ontario - Nelligan Law

The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Kosicki v. Toronto clarifies that municipal parkland in Ontario is not immune from adverse possession.

nelliganlaw.ca

"In a landmark ruling, the Court confirmed that municipal parkland is not automatically protected from claims of adverse possession."

Here's the test for adverse possession laid out by the Ontario Superior Court:

The Court noted that, in order to succeed, the Applicants had to establish that their use of the Subject Property was “open, notorious, constant, continuous, peaceful and exclusive of the right of the true owner”, for any 10-year period prior to November 20, 2000, which was when the Subject Property was transferred into the Land Titles system.


The Applicants also had to establish that their use met the following criteria:

• they had actual possession of the property in issue;
• they intended to exclude the true owner from possession of his property; and
• they effectively excluded the true owner from possession of his property.

I don't believe any encampment in Toronto would meet these criteria.

10 years of continuous use/possession is a long time, and exclusive use is generally understood to be enforceable in some way, typically with a fence. The burden of proof is also on the applicant.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Here's the test for adverse possession laid out by the Ontario Superior Court:

The Court noted that, in order to succeed, the Applicants had to establish that their use of the Subject Property was “open, notorious, constant, continuous, peaceful and exclusive of the right of the true owner”, for any 10-year period prior to November 20, 2000, which was when the Subject Property was transferred into the Land Titles system.


The Applicants also had to establish that their use met the following criteria:

• they had actual possession of the property in issue;
• they intended to exclude the true owner from possession of his property; and
• they effectively excluded the true owner from possession of his property.

I don't believe any encampment in Toronto would meet these criteria.

10 years of continuous use/possession is a long time, and exclusive use is generally understood to be enforceable in some way, typically with a fence. The burden of proof is also on the applicant.

Does the city have a policy on encampments and all the associated debris in its ravines? I know in public parks the city policy is not to move anyone camping unless housing can be found. But what of the ravines? And the people aside, what about all the garbage from abandoned camps? If you look over the Gerrard St bridge at River you’ll see piles upon piles of garbage, old shopping carts, discarded suitcases, broken chairs, etc. I think about calling 311 but am not convinced that anything would happen.

 

[Northern Light]

Does the city have a policy on encampments and all the associated debris in its ravines? I know in public parks the city policy is not to move anyone camping unless housing can be found. But what of the ravines? And the people aside, what about all the garbage from abandoned camps? If you look over the Gerrard St bridge at River you’ll see piles upon piles of garbage, old shopping carts, discarded suitcases, broken chairs, etc. I think about calling 311 but am not convinced that anything would happen.

I'm not sure what any written policy may say............

But in practice the City clears encampments in ravines periodically as they do under the Gardiner, one expects the issue is partly complaint driven, partly safety driven.

Toronto Fire has some say. An encampment not far from me had an out of control fire for a period of time, Toronto Fire responded..........the camp was cleared not long after.

I think, in general, if they maintain a low profile away from public paths, there is some level of tolerance...... I doubt that is the formal policy, but it is practice.

Draw attention at your peril.

 

[doady]

I see encampments along the Credit River in Mississauga too. It kinda ruins the park but I'd rather leave them alone. I'm more bothered by the non-homeless people throwing their beer cans and candy wrappers everywhere...