Bill 5 — 2014 lands and natural resource operation amendment act

[JoeJoe]

What do you guys think of this... The Minister of Forests is trying to change the Lank Titles Act. Why do you suppose he would do that. Could it be linked to what is happening at Douglas Lake Ranch. Maybe they are trying to give away the bottom of Minnie and Stoney Lakes.. Any Lawyers in the group.

SECTION 7: [Land Title Act, section 108]


authorizes the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make an order to undo past deemed transfers of land under section 108 (2) of the Act if there is uncertainty about the operation of that section or if the operation of that section would be inappropriate or unfair;

provides a process for filing the order in the land title system and requires that the filing occur before the order has effect.

7 Section 108 of the Land Title Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 250, is amended
(a) in subsection (3) by striking out "that is included in a subdivision or reference plan",and
(b) by adding the following subsections:
(5.1) Subject to any terms or conditions the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers appropriate, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may order retroactively that subsection (2) did not operate on one or more occasions in respect of land identified in the order, if, in the opinion of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, one or both of the following apply:
(a) it is desirable to clarify title to land because of uncertainty about the operation of subsection (2);
(b) the operation of subsection (2) is inappropriate or unfair because a person, including a registered owner, as a result of a belief that the registered owner had title to land,
(i) has incurred costs in the past,
(ii) is likely to suffer loss in the future, or
(iii) is otherwise prejudiced.
(5.2) Subject to the terms and conditions provided for by the Lieutenant Governor in Council and to subsection (5.4), an order under subsection (5.1) is retroactive for all purposes and, without limitation, has the following retroactive effects:
(a) the land referred to in the order is conclusively deemed not to have been transferred in fee simple to the government under subsection (2) on any occasion identified in the order;
(b) the title of the registered owner at the time of an occasion identified in the order is conclusively deemed not to have been extinguished under subsection (2).
(5.3) The registrar must make a note of an order under subsection (5.1) in the records in the manner required by the director on receipt of the following:
(a) a certified copy of the order;
(b) if required by the registrar, a certificate from the minister stating that all terms and conditions in the order have been satisfied;
(c) any other filings required by the registrar.
(5.4) An order under subsection (5.1) only has effect if the registrar has made a note of it under subsection (5.

[Fisher-Dude]

I read it twice. Show me where it authorizes the disposition of sub-aqua lands.

[JoeJoe]

If designation on plan "Returned to Crown in right of the Province" 108 (1) Except as provided in section 107 (1), if, on the subdivision of land, a subdivision or reference plan is deposited in the land title office, and a portion of the land subdivided is designated on the plan "Returned to Crown in right of the Province", the deposit of the plan is deemed to be a transfer in fee simple by the registered owner in favour of the government.
(2) If the subdivided area shown in and included in a subdivision or reference plan deposited in the land title office before or after this section comes into force adjoins land covered by water, and the land is included in the subdivider's indefeasible title and adjoins land the title to which is vested in the Crown in right of the Province, the deposit is deemed to be a transfer in fee simple of the first mentioned land to the government, and the title of the registered owner to the first mentioned land covered by water is deemed to be extinguished.
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply to land that is included in a subdivision or reference plan that has been exempted from the application of that subsection by order of the minister, subject to any terms or conditions contained in the exemption order.
(3.1) The minister may delegate to the Surveyor General the minister's powers and duties under subsection (3).
(4) A certified copy of an order under subsection (3) must be filed with the deposit of the plan, and the registrar must make a note of the order in the records in the manner required by the director.
(5) An application to the minister for an exemption under subsection (3) must be accompanied by the prescribed fee.
(6) A transfer under subsection (1) or (2) is deemed to include the mines and minerals except if the title to them is registered in the name of an owner not required to sign a subdivision or reference plan.
(7) An indefeasible title must not be registered for land transferred under subsections (1) and (2).


Sorry I should have referred you to section 108 (2) of the land titles act above which is the one being amended. It says that private land that is flooded by a body of water that is on public land , automatically becomes public land attached to the public land that is already there (the public lake bed)
The amendment would change that so the Minister can retroactively change that law to provide for the poor land owner that might loose money if the bottom of the lake wasn't his.
I agree it is not an easy read.. but it is a concern and where are they intending to implement this giveaway of lake beds.

[JoeJoe]

I read it twice. Show me where it authorizes the disposition of sub-aqua lands.

Have you read above.. any thoughts?

[Fisher-Dude]

It's convoluted but I see what you are saying. By removing the subdivision/reference plan requirement, it gives the Minister broader powers to grant exemptions to Ss (2).

[Gateholio]

I must ask if a lake bed is private land flooded by public waters, then doesn't that make it a moot point of who owns the lake bed, if you are swimming or in a boat? You aren't on the lake bed, you are on the public water?

[JoeJoe]

I must ask if a lake bed is private land flooded by public waters, then doesn't that make it a moot point of who owns the lake bed, if you are swimming or in a boat? You aren't on the lake bed, you are on the public water?

That is true, I would think, then why would it be so important that someone get the bottom of a lake because it may affect him financially, that they have to change the laws to make them what they call fair and allow the land to be retained so the land holder doesn't loose money in the future. This is retroactive. Has to be pretty important to Steve Thompson and the libs. Looks like some big corporation or land holder is being affected..

[JoeJoe]

It's convoluted but I see what you are saying. By removing the subdivision/reference plan requirement, it gives the Minister broader powers to grant exemptions to Ss (2).
Exactly... Now it is not necessarily a subdivision .. just land that the poor landowner thought was his even though he may have flooded it himself and if he looses it he will be hurt financially and may be subjected to losses in the future... that sounds like someone is getting a favor from government at public expense of public resources. Someone has to ask Steve Thompson what is the intent here.. or is it too late for that?
And why would it have to be retroactive?

[40incher]

Expect the provincial Liberal Gov't to give our public access away, it's been in the works for years.

Roads will be designated for commercial use only, including hunting guides, to exclude public use for all kinds of land-use activities. No public/taxpayer hunting, fishing, woodcutting, berry picking etc ...

We live in California North in case you didn't know. Our public access is for sale to a very select group of bidders. Chrispy knows the price of everything, and the value of nothing.

[JoeJoe]

Expect the provincial Liberal Gov't to give our public access away, it's been in the works for years.

Roads will be designated for commercial use only, including hunting guides, to exclude public use for all kinds of land-use activities. No public/taxpayer hunting, fishing, woodcutting, berry picking etc ...

We live in California North in case you didn't know. Our public access is for sale to a very select group of bidders. Chrispy knows the price of everything, and the value of nothing.

What is the price of a lake I wonder. Does Wal-Mart get a discount?