A woman who bought a 20-year-old cottage in Magnetawan in 2022 not only later discovered it was on Crown land, but was told by the Ministry of Natural Resources she had to remove it or face the consequences. Ingrid Posendorf bought a 50-acre property on Centre Road in Magnetawan in December 2022, which included a winterized, four-bedroom cottage, a covered porch, outhouse, a driveway and other structures, for $320,000. The MLS listing for the sale described it as a cabin built in 2004-2005 that bordered Crown land. “Ms. Posendorf had requested a survey before completing the purchase but was told that none was available,” said the Superior Court of Justice decision in the case. “She attended at the property, travelled along the driveway and saw the structures. A ‘620’ marker and the physical arrangement reinforced the impression that the driveway led to structures situated on the parcel being sold. The agreement of purchase and sale referred to the present use as a cottage and included chattels associated with the cabin.” Moved there in 2022, tried to sell in 2023 She moved in and stayed there until April 2023, when she decided she wanted to sell. However, Realtors she dealt with questioned exactly where the legal land boundaries were located. “In April 2024, a Managed Forest Plan Approver advised that the cabin appeared to lie west of the western boundary,” the court said. “A subsequent sketch prepared for her by Tulloch Geomatics confirmed that the structures were on Crown land.” She told an interested buyer that she couldn’t sell and contacted the Ministry of Natural Resources to try and buy the 1.5 acres of Crown land that the structures were situated on. In June 2025, she submitted a formal proposal to the MNR to buy the land. “A district supervisor (with the MNR) identified matters requiring attention, including the history, the amount of land that would have to be sold, the Crown road allowance, the creation of separate lots, the practicality of moving the structures and the legal position of the present owner,” the court said. Tried to buy the land from the Crown “The district’s preferred course, however, was to have the structures moved to private property.” In August 2025, Posendorf’s lawyer was told that her request to buy the land would likely be refused. “The lawyer was also told that there could be an opportunity to challenge or escalate the outcome,” the court said. “That latter information was inaccurate.” The request was formally refused in September 2025 by Adam Wakefield, the district manager, in a letter. “It stated that Ms. Posendorf already owned substantial private property a short distance away and that the ministry had decided not to sell public land to expand those uses,” the decision said. “The letter also said that the structures constituted an unauthorised occupation, that they ‘must be removed,’ and that, although Ms. Posendorf had not constructed them, ‘as the current occupier she is responsible for their removal.’ It gave her 12 months, after which the ministry ‘may consider taking further compliance action.’” Her lawyer sought an injunction and to have the issue referred to the regional manager for a new decision. In his decision on behalf of the divisional court, Justice Graeme Mew wrote that the court had to decide whether the decision was reasonable, whether the process was fair and whether the statements requiring the removal was a reviewable decision. “The applicant’s requests for an injunction and remittal of the matter to the regional manager arise only if the applicant succeeds on one of those issues,” Mew wrote. Woman did nothing wrong While pointing out that Posendorf was not responsible for the predicament, and that the MNR didn’t do a proper job of explaining the refusal, the court ruled that the decision itself was reasonable. Under Ontario policies, Crown land should only be sold when there is a clear benefit to the public. “Crown land is not ordinarily sold or rented for private residential or recreational purposes or to expand private property,” Mew wrote. “A sale would enlarge Ms. Posendorf’s private landholding to include Crown land physically separated from her parcel by a road allowance.” While there was a clear “private hardship” if the sale was refused, there was no “public benefit” identified if the Crown land was sold. “The ministry was entitled to preserve Crown ownership unless persuaded that disposition served a sufficient public purpose,” the court said. There was also no evidence of procedural unfairness, Mew wrote, but he did take exception to the wording requiring Posendorf to remove the cottage and other structures within a year or face possible action from the MNR. The judge said those words had no real legal force, and in fact, she was being asked to voluntarily remove the structures. “The wording used by the ministry was inappropriate and regrettable,” the decision said. “A person receiving an official letter stating that structures ‘must’ be removed within a fixed time and that the recipient ‘is responsible’ could reasonably understand that a legal obligation had been conclusively imposed. That was not the respondents’ position before this court, and it was not the legal effect of the letter.” That, however, had no bearing on the decision not to sell Crown land, a ruling that the court upheld. Read the full decision here.
