The King v. Fares et al.
The ad medium filum aquae presumption is rebuttable and, on these facts, is excluded: Dominion statute provisions, the survey and pricing regime, and the specific Crown agreements and patents demonstrate an intention that grants of the fractional sections conveyed only the acreage expressly described (i.e. no...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1932] SCR 78
- Parties
- Appellant: His Majesty The King; Respondent (suppliant): William Henry Fares; Respondent (suppliant): Alexander Smith; Respondent (suppliant): Smith & Fares, Limited
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 9 November 1931
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal From Exchequer Court of Canada (petition of Right) / Final Decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; petition dismissed with costs.
- Legal Topics
- Riparian Rights, Ad Medium Filum Aquae Presumption, Crown Land Grants, Dominion Lands Act Interpretation, Survey and Boundary Rules, Torrens System
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
His Majesty The King
Appellant
William Henry Fares
Respondent (suppliant)
Alexander Smith
Respondent (suppliant)
Smith & Fares, Limited
Respondent (suppliant)
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Exchequer Court of Canada (petition of Right) / Final Decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether grants of fractional sections abutting a non-navigable lake carried title to the mid‑point of the lake (ad medium filum aquae)
- 2 Whether Dominion statute scheme and specific agreements exclude the ad medium filum presumption for Crown grants in the North‑West Territories
- 3 Whether subsequent artificial lowering of the lake and subsequent transfers affect claimants’ rights to newly exposed lakebed
Ratio Decidendi
The ad medium filum aquae presumption is rebuttable and, on these facts, is excluded: Dominion statute provisions, the survey and pricing regime, and the specific Crown agreements and patents demonstrate an intention that grants of the fractional sections conveyed only the acreage expressly described (i.e. no unsurveyed lakebed to the centre passed), and, in any event, where the lake had been lowered before respondents acquired title the described parcels were no longer riparian so the presumption could not be invoked to expand those descriptions.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; petition dismissed with costs.
Orders
- Appeal allowed with costs
- Petition dismissed with costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment