The letter is archived below. (Double-click on images for better view)
However, the same old questions are raised ....
· Did MNR have all the evidence required to make their decision?
· Was their investigation thorough enough?
· Did the City of Toronto fully explain to MNR why this lakefill land is shown as "open space" (parkland) on City zoning maps?
· If there is no "evidence" to support either legal or illegal lakefill on this additional 60 odd feet, why default to "legal"?
· Why not declare there is a current lack of evidence to support either claim and let it go to a public Land Registry tribunal where all parties can present their case?
· How cozy is the relationship between MNR, the applicant, the applicant's "expert" witnesses and the applicant's counsel?
· Why is there no onus on the applicant to prove (at a tribunal) that the lakefill was done legally (Le. on dry, accreted lakebed)?
· Why have'nt the former owners of this property applied for absolute title over the last 100 years?
· What stopped them? (knowledge that it was really public land?)