ARGO RUN ROAD CLOSURE – "Appalling and Glaring Errors"

Argo Run is one of the main roads in Mattawan Township.  It was once known as Antoinette Drive and historically it was part of the main thoroughfare called Government Road. In recent years it was rechristened Argo Run to recognize Mr. John Argo Sr.'s reputation as a marathon walker and to honour the family's long history in Mattawan Township. The section of the Ottawa River referred to in this petition is from the Le Cave Hydro Dam N/W of Mattawa to Temiskaming, Quebec.

Unfortunately, a key part of the road that runs down to the Ottawa River has been closed without public discussion, and under questionable circumstances. Fishing is an important part of livelihood, and access to the river has been an unquestioned right in our community for generations. River access is an expected benefit of living on Argo Run and has always been available without restriction for neighboring property owners and the public in general, new and old alike.  In the past few years, Physical Barriers and No Trespassing Signs have been erected at the end of the road and within sight of the water.  Nearby ratepayers, neighbours, and the community, in general, have been quietly asking how this could have happened.

Government Road is a very old road.  It was once the main road going north from Mattawa along the Ottawa River. It was an important route in the early history of the upper Ottawa Valley and the discovery and opening of the country to new settlement and development.  Unfortunately, in the 1952 flooding of the river above the Otto Holden Dam a part of the road disappeared under the water. But in the 66 years since then, there has always been plenty of room and easy access for neighbours and the public with boats and trailers to get down to the river.

It is believed that this issue started with the three-lot land severance Application of Consent 2004-07 dated November 29, 2004, where the owner applied to sever three lots from Parcel 4468 Nipissing. On February 10, 2005, Paul Goodridge, O.L.S, made a presentation to council for the three-lot severance. No details or minutes of this presentation were provided in the Township minutes and no sketch of this three-lot severance was made available upon request.  Resolution 2005-003 was passed at this meeting, stating that council had no objection to the consent application or to closing the road in exchange for a turnaround.  However, on June 2, 2005, the Municipal Planner reported that only one lot was acceptable.  After discussion at the council meeting on June 16, 2005, Resolution 2005-052 to close this section of the road was defeated by council.  (#1 attached – original three-lot consent application; #2 – resolution to accept original proposal; #3 – Township planner's report.)

 Resolution 2005-073 was passed on August 11, 2005, when the consent was changed to one lot and a new amended sketch was provided. (#4 attached – amended one-lot sketch.)  This sketch did not include any portion of the old public road in the new severed parcel.  It provided road access from the severed parcel to the old road and to the proposed turnaround, as well as bordering, all along its western side, the private drive on the retained property that would have been required to cross those lots in the original three-lot version of the application. The old Government Road/Argo Run roadway land was clearly to be the eastern border of the severed lot and not part of the severed lands.

A survey, substantially changed from that amended sketch, was completed on December 9, 2005, and not only was the road contained in the severed parcel, but the parcel now contained the 66 foot wide road, the extension of Argo Run to the river, and all the way South to the east-west road allowance between Concessions 9 and 10. This would have also prevented access to the new proposed triangular turnaround to be deeded to the Township as Part 5.  A separate Part 3 was added to create a 12 foot right of way along the side of Part 1. The survey notes explained that the severed land was to include Part 1 (9.98 acres) encompassing the 66 foot roadway down to the river, Part 3 (a 12 foot wide strip, 345 feet long, along the east side of the old public road portion of Part 1 from Part 4 down to the river), and Part 4 (a 66 foot wide traveled portion of the road then in use) at the end of Argo Run.  Part 2, the driveway on the retained land and now redundant to the revised application would be retained by the applicant.  Part 5 is the proposed triangle turnaround swap that was to be registered to the Municipality even though it no longer connected to any public road. (#5 attached – survey Dec 9, 2005.)

 A meeting was held on or about July 12, 2006, with the Township Mayor, Peter Murphy, the Township Clerk, Barb Castellani, the Township road superintendent, James Doucette, the municipal solicitor, Mr. W.D Christie, and the applicant, Mr. Ivan Boissoneault, to clarify the municipality's position with respect to the severance. A long list of errors was included in the meeting checklist.  (#6 attached – draft meeting checklist dated July 12, 2006.)  Also on July 12, 2006, the Township's lawyer, Mr. Christie, wrote to the East Nipissing Planning Board and Mr. Boissoneault's lawyer.

To Ms. Morin (East Nipissing Planning Board), he wrote: "that there are some appalling and glaring errors being committed on this file."  He explained that the "solicitor had no authorization to register a document....[and] that a deed cannot legally be registered in the name of a municipality without the municipality's consent."  (#7 attached – letter from Mr. Christie to Planning Board.)

To Mr. Wood (solicitor for the applicant), Mr. Christie wrote, " I am concerned at what I find."  "What authority did you have to act on behalf of the Municipality? and "If you did have the authority then you owed an obligation to the Municipality to advise them that they had good title, when in fact they did not. The property is subject to a mortgage in the amount of $185,240."  (#8 attached – letter from Mr. Christie to lawyer Mr. Wood.

Mr. Christie wrote the Township on December 7, 2006, under the heading "Boissoneault Dealings Etc.", again listing the errors and deficiencies, leaving the matter unresolved and describing his efforts as 'not having produced any tangible results' and therefore reducing his invoice for services performed on the matter.  (#8 attached – Mr. Christie letter to Township.)

From Mr. Christie's letter, it appears that the applicant's lawyer, Mr. Wood, registered deeded ownership of the newly proposed Parts 1 to 4 to the Municipality and to the applicant, apparently and effectively blocking public access to the river.  It appears there was no justification or authorization available, nor any historical precedent, for these proposed severances, roadway widths or locations, roadway closure, or for any ownership transfer to the Township or the applicant.

In spite of these unresolved errors and illegal acts, no person seems to have taken the next steps to clarify the situation and object to or correct the unauthorized registration of the deeds.  No by-law for a road closure was ever passed in the Township records.  In the meantime, in 2012, the applicant sold Parts 1, 3 and 4 to new owners.  The Township has continued to permit the property owner(s) to install barriers and no trespassing signs on the road.  Now, after these questions have been raised again, the Township has declared in a public meeting that the roadway is owned by the Township and has directed the current owners to remove the barrier.  No initiative has yet been undertaken to describe accurately the lands in question and to correctly identify and register legal ownerships.

By way of summary and explanation, here is how the Parts now stand:

Part 1 – the 9.98 acres, including the 66-foot road allowance to the river, severed and registered to the applicant, subsequently sold in 2012, and now owned and used by the new owner.
Part 2 – the right of way needed when the original three-lot severance was contemplated being the original driveway to the Dupras/Redpath farm (now Boissoneault) and retained and still owned by the applicant of the severance.
Part 3 – the proposed 12-foot right of way along the east side of the original road, severed and registered to the applicant, since sold in 2012, and now deeded to the new owner of Part 1 above.
Part 4 – the 66-foot wide road allowance, registered to the new owner in 2012, even though no parts of the road to the river have ever been legally closed.
Part 5 – the triangle turnaround was registered to the township by the applicant's lawyer without apparent legal authorization and is not connected to any public road.

 SUMMARY and UPDATE:

Valuable waterfront lands with the accompanying convenient, unique and public access to the river were apparently traded away without consultation or authorization in return for a supposed turnaround of little or no value and of no useful purpose. Researching these details has met with months of delays and denials.  The applicant's original claims that no road existed or that it was an impassable track have proved to be misleading.

After numerous months of questioning, the Township wrote a June 10, 2016, letter to its lawyer requesting clarification (#10 attached). 
The lawyers August 2, 2016, responding letter explained some aspects of the situation and advised that "If there is any dispute as to the Municipality's ownership, then the only way to resolve it is an Application in Superior Court of Justice for a Declaration of Ownership." (#11 attached).

Following receipt of that letter and in an apparently abrupt u-turn, the mayor announced at the beginning of the regular public meeting on August 11, 2016, that the road was public. The council then directed the clerk to send a letter to the new owners requesting removal of the barrier (#12 attached).  This blunt demand will surely unsettle the new owners who bought the land from an owner who does not now appear to have acquired it under normal circumstances. These tactics do not invite cooperation. A polite request to commence a reopening of negotiations to establish the facts and work out a solution might have been more diplomatic and appropriate in the circumstances.

The one-lot severance as proposed on the amended sketch back in August of 2005 would have been a logical and sensible solution but somehow the subsequent changes to the plan were pushed through illegally, without consultation, or authorization, and have created an unacceptable situation that has been officially ignored until now.  Waterfront lots are expensive, but this one seems to have been given away in return for little or no compensation in a most fiscally, legally and socially irresponsible manner.

It has taken a great deal of work and determination to achieve transparency surrounding these details.  Accountability is now required from those responsible.  A new spirit of openness and a willingness to cooperate will be needed to get matters back on track, have appropriate penalties applied, and get legal ownerships duly registered in a proper manner.

To summarize the above, prior to this land trade the Municipality owned:
1:  The public road to the river (Part 3)
2:  The snow plow turnaround (Part 4), which had been used by the Municipality since the 1950's.
Following the land trade, the Municipality owned (Part 5), an isolated triangle of land with no public road leading to it. (Which was pointed out by the Municipal Lawyer.)

It appears that the Municipality has given away the public road and the turnaround. At any time the property owner can order the Municipality, as well as the public to stop using the road and the turnaround, and evidently, the taxpayers will be on the hook for the cost of purchasing land and building another.

The Municipality’s latest position that this was never a public road is ludicrous. If there was any doubt to the ownership, then searching of the records should have been done before advertising it and entering into the agreement. It is a public road leading to this section, and a public road closed by a municipal by-law beyond it. It has been proven without a doubt that this land deal did not make sense, nor did it provide any benefit to the Municipality. The lawyer’s directions were ignored. In council meetings concerning this issue, it was always the Council, the Property Owners, and the Ontario Land Surveyor vs. the Taxpayers, although it is evident that the Municipality was the big loser in this land deal. It has been confirmed with a municipal lawyer that the turnaround WAS owned by the Municipality and that the new adjacent property owner was bound by this. (Email attached) It should be noted that this was not the only deal done; the only public access to the Mattawa River was closed at this same meeting.  The response of the various government agencies contacted has varied from brushing us off to outright support for our council.

THIS DEAL WAS DEFINITELY NOT "FOR THE PEOPLE!!"

THE UNDERSIGNED PERSONS REQUEST THAT THE GOVERNMENT AGENCY RESPONSIBLE, PERFORM AN HONEST, TRANSPARENT REVIEW OF THIS DEAL MADE BY THE MUNICIPALITY, INCLUDING AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE SURVEY ON RECORD.