Your reading list

Land ownership, mineral rights issues – The Law

Reading Time: 3 minutes

Published: October 24, 2002

Q: My mother owns some land in Saskatchewan, which includes mineral

rights. Her plan is to leave the land to her six siblings. I have heard

that in Sask-atchewan mineral rights can’t be willed to six people.

A: Until recently, Saskatchewan’s Land Titles Act provided that the

registrar could refuse to grant title to less than a quarter interest

in minerals. In your scenario, that means title would not be granted

for one-sixth interest in the minerals. However,

Read Also

View of a set of dumbbells in a shared fitness pod of the smart shared-fitness provider Shanghai ParkBox Technology Co. at the Caohejing Hi-Tech Park in Shanghai, China, 25 October 2017.

Smart shared-fitness provider Shanghai ParkBox Technology Co. has released a new version of its mobile app and three new sizes of its fitness pod, the company said in a press briefing yesterday (25 October 2017). The update brings a social network feature to the app, making it easier for users to find work-out partners at its fitness pods. The firm has also introduced three new sizes of its fitness boxes which are installed in local communities. The new two-, four- and five-person boxes cover eight, 18 and 28 square meters, respectively. ParkBox's pods are fitted with Internet of Things (IoT) equipment, mobile self-help appointment services, QR-code locks and a smart instructor system employing artificial intelligence. 



No Use China. No Use France.

Well-being improvement can pay off for farms

Investing in wellness programs in a tight labour market can help farms recruit and retain employees

Saskatchewan is implementing a new land titles

system and that prohibition has been removed.

While interests in land can be left to as many people as the maker of

the will wishes, practical considerations may arise. What if three

people want to sell and the other three don’t? Or what if five people

think the mineral lease is a good deal and one doesn’t?

Damage from spraying

Q: We live in Manitoba at the end of a municipal road. No one else

uses this road. Over the years we have planted alfalfa and clover in

the ditches. Saskatoon and chokecherry bushes have also grown in the

ditches. The growth in the ditches did not hinder road maintenance.

Recently, the municipality sprayed the ditch, killing all the verdant

growth. When the sprayer turned at the end of the road it also created

damage to our yard. What claim do we have, if any, against the

municipality?

A: As in all provinces, roadways are crown land and under control of

the municipality or province. Manitoba law provides that “a

municipality has the direction, control and management of municipal

roads within its boundaries.” As such, the municipality decides on

maintenance, determines when to build a road and controls the ditches.

Many years ago, when I still practised law, I represented a

Saskatchewan farmer who had planted crop in the ditches. He had done so

for many years. One year, the municipality drove a cat through the

ditch. The farmer claimed for his crop, and yes, we went to court. We

got turfed out pretty quick. There was no basis for him to make the

claim.

However, if your yard, garden or crop suffered damage as a result of

the spraying, you may have a claim against the municipality. There are

often strict rules for advancing claims against municipalities. As for

future spraying of the ditch, this is a matter you should discuss with

your councillor or municipal administrators.

A reader brought to my attention an interesting issue dealing with

mineral taxation in Saskatchewan. A mineral tax applies to holders of

mineral rights. However, you are exempt if you own the rights in less

than five sections. An agricultural corporation that owns mineral

rights in less than five sections is also exempt. To qualify for the

exemption, the corporation must be owned by resident farmers.

A farmer is defined as one who derives the majority of his income from

the sale of agricultural products. The reader’s question was about what

constitutes the majority of one’s income from the sale of agricultural

products. Does income mean gross income or net income from farming?

As he pointed out, many farmers have off-farm income that exceeds their

net farm income, but not their gross farm income. The reader had an

off-farm job that paid him more than his net farm income in the year in

question.

Eventually, the matter was resolved in his favour. There are many laws

that define farming for a variety of purposes and obviously, with

off-farm jobs now a necessity, a law defining farming by net income may

not reflect the reality of today’s farm economy.

Don Purich is a former practising lawyer who is now involved in

publishing, teaching and writing about legal issues. His columns are

intended as general advice only. Individuals are encouraged to seek

other opinions and/or personal counsel when dealing with legal matters.

explore

Stories from our other publications