Sask. Court of Appeal dismisses appeal in Buena Vista land dispute

Rowan's Ravine Provincial Park on the eastern shore of Last Mountain Lake. (David Prisciak/CTV News)

Saskatchewan’s highest court has dismissed an appeal in the case of a years-long land dispute between the Village of Buena Vista and local landowners.

In a decision dated March 11, Saskatchewan’s Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal in the case of Buena Vista (Village) v Garner.

The case concerns nine parcels of land located between Last Mountain Lake and an old railway right of way formerly owned by the provincial Crown that has since been converted into a walking path administered by the village.

In 2018, the village’s boundaries were expanded by ministerial order to include the parcels in question.

• Download the CTV News app to get breaking news alerts sent to your device

The central issue of the case revolves around whether the affected properties extend beyond the bank of the lake. The property owners argue that their lots extend into the lake and include the shoreline and lakebed. This belief led several of the owners to rent boat slips on the lakeshore.

The village rejected these practices and wished to pass bylaws to regulate the activity.

In June 2021, the village brought forward its application under The Land Surveys Act, arguing that the provincial Crown was the lawful owner of the land forming the bed and shore of Last Mountain Lake. The village requested the cancellation of the existing land titles and the issuing of new ones reflecting the new boundaries.

• Sask. judge rules against Village of Buena Vista in land dispute case

In June 2024, Saskatchewan’s Court of King’s Bench decided against the village, siding with the property owners.

In its decision, Saskatchewan’s Court of Appeal ruled that the trial judge did make a mistake in relying on a certain precedent when ruling on how parcel boundaries could be determined under The Land Surveys Act. However, the justices ultimately arrived at the same decision.

The justices supported the trial judge’s findings that the village did not establish standing to seek the relief it was requesting, in the form of its application to redraw land boundaries for the nine parcels.

As Justice Keith Kilback wrote: “Effectively, the village was asking the Court to accept its interpretation of the Crown grants, take away the parts of the lots belonging to the registered owners that were under water, and transfer them to the province – all because it wanted to pass bylaws to prevent the owners from renting out boat slips on that land.”

“As a threshold issue, the owners challenged how the village (which did not own the lots and was not claiming ownership or any interest in them) had any standing to interfere with their property rights in this way,” Kilback continued.

Additionally, the justices ruled the village not being granted “public interest standing” in the case, given the nature of the bylaws, was a non-issue – simply because that aspect was not raised or addressed during the original trial.

“… The judge was not asked to address or consider public interest standing,” the decision read. “There is therefore no basis to conclude the judge’s reasons were insufficient in the ways alleged by the village. The judge’s reasons allow for meaningful review and adequately explain why the judge decided as she did.”

The court dismissed the appeal and awarded an unspecified set of costs to the property owners.