Law360 Canada (May 25, 2026, 12:35 PM EDT) --

Balvinder Kumar

This appeal involves nine parcels of land between Last Mountain Lake and an old railway right of way owned by the provincial Crown that was converted into a walking path. The walking path is administered by the village.

In the originating application against the registered property owners, the village of Buena Vista, a resort community in Saskatchewan, sought declarations that their lots included the bed and bank of Last Mountain Lake and the submerged portions of certain lakeside lots that were owned by the Crown together with orders redrawing the lot boundaries to issue new titles. Registered owners’ lots extended into the lake allowing them to rent boat slips.

The main issue was whether the properties extended beyond the bank of the lake. The village said no and the property owners said yes. The main reason for this disagreement is the conflicting interpretation of the property descriptions set out in three original Crown grants from 1891,1893 and 1901, and a township plan from 1882. In 2015, based on their interpretation of the Crown grants, the village conducted a preliminary survey of the properties to determine the exact location. The survey showed that the bank had shifted. In 2017, the village intended to have new boundaries for their lots in accordance with the preliminary survey. They asked the registered owners to agree, failing which they would reach out to the court to have the boundaries determined and redrawn.

The owners did not agree, and the village applied by originating application pursuant to s. 21 of The Land Surveys Act, 2000, SS 2000, c L-4.1. The village sought the following declaration that:


The relevant part of s. 21 reads as follows:



The interpretation of s. 21 provides that where boundaries of a parcel have been determined with reference to a bank or centre line of a body of water that has been used as a natural survey monument, and the location of that monument has changed over time, the boundaries of the parcel may only be determined by agreement of all the registered owners or by court order. Section 21 only permits the boundaries of a parcel to be determined by court order where all registered owners do not agree on those boundaries. The registered owners relied on this and argued that since all registered owners agreed, a court order to determine the boundaries could not be granted. Further, the owners argued the village had no standing to make an application under s. 21.

Based on the above, the judge relied on precedent cases and knocked down the application of the village on the following grounds:


Unhappy with the decision, the village appealed.

The appeal revolves around the interpretation of s. 21 of The Land Surveys Act, 2000 as understood by the judge and the test of public interest standing.

As far as s. 21 is concerned, the lower court judge assumed the bank of the lake was used as a natural monument and that its location had changed over time and held that s. 21 “contemplates an application to the court for determination of the boundaries of a parcel where there is no agreement of the registered owners as to the boundaries.” The judge reasoned that because there was agreement among the registered owners and a lack of disagreement from the provincial Crown, a determination by the court was unnecessary.

Further, the judge found the absence of an agreement among the registered owners was a necessary condition for the boundaries of a parcel to be determined by court order under s. 21. The section says nothing about who can bring an application to have the boundaries of parcels determined by court order. Not only this, but the village had also not established its standing to seek the relief they were looking for. The village is not and does not seek to be the owner of any of the property with which the originating application is concerned. Rather, it seeks a declaration as to the provincial Crown’s ownership of the bed and shore of the lake.

The village seeks relief for the provincial Crown that the provincial Crown does not seek for itself. Although the village argued that it had sufficient interest to seek the relief as “the authoritative body tasked with the administration of the village” and that “determination of the boundaries will enable it to draft bylaws and make appropriate rules and regulations,” lack of evidence by the village falls short of establishing that the village has any legal or other interest at stake that would be affected by a determination of the boundaries of the parcels.

The Court of Appeal also discusses private interest versus public interest standing (Buena Vista (Village) v. Garner, [2026] S.J. No. 84).

To have private interest standing, a person must have “a personal and direct interest in the issue being litigated.” A public interest standing allows “individuals or organizations to bring cases of public interest before the courts even though they are not directly involved in the matter and even though their own rights are not infringed.”

The village pursued public interest standing. The village argued that the judge who heard the originating application failed to apply the test of public interest standing. Analyzing the lower court decision, the Court of Appeal found that the judge did not consider or address the public interest standing at all. The judge examined the private interest of the village in obtaining the declaration and associated relief sought in its originating application. According to the judge, the only clearly identified interest was the village’s desire to adopt bylaws relating to the business activity of the owners who were renting out boat slips. There was no evidence “that the village is not able to do this regardless of whether the land under and around the boat slips is owned by the cabin owners or by the provincial Crown” and the judge concluded that the evidence “falls short of establishing that the village has any legal or other interest at stake which would be affected by a determination of the boundaries of the parcels.”

Further, it must be recognized that “a claim for declaratory relief and for public interest standing are separate and distinct matters.” Although the village applied for a declaration, there was no mention of seeking public interest standing in the originating application nor a public interest standing raised or argued before the judge. There was no merit here as the village did not ask to address or consider public interest standing.

The Court of Appeal supported the lower court’s decision and unanimously dismissed the appeal finding that the village failed to establish any legal, private or public interest at stake that would determine the boundaries and justify redrawing the land titles, although the village retained full authority to enforce bylaws regardless of who owned the land.

Balvinder Kumar practises real estate law (residential and commercial) and is a freelance writer and author with LexisNexis.

The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.