East London Crown Land Dispute: MP Fragiskatos Intervenes

Key Points

• Residents in northeast East London, Ontario, face a heated property line dispute over crown land owned by the federal government near Kilally Road, potentially forcing them to lose portions of their backyards they’ve used for decades.
• A four-decades-old informal arrangement allowed homeowners adjacent to a federal research facility to maintain gardens, build sheds, and use extra space beyond their official property lines on federally owned land.
• The original wooden fence, installed around living trees to preserve them, created a “bump out” that residents treated as their de facto boundary, following Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)’s practice of protecting healthy trees.
• AAFC now plans to replace the ageing, irreparable wooden fence with a straight-line chain-link fence along the official surveyed boundary, eliminating the extra space residents have relied upon.
• Trees incorporated into the old fence line were removed after consultations with licensed arborists due to age and disease, removing the environmental rationale for the irregular boundary.
• Homeowners must remove all structures—sheds, gardens, and landscaping—at their own cost, sparking outrage over financial burdens and loss of recreational space without prior adequate consultation.
• Residents assumed the “bump out” reflected the true property line, having maintained and improved the land in good faith for 40 years without federal challenge.
• Liberal MP Peter Fragiskatos, representing the area, has intervened, preparing to meet the federal agriculture ministry to advocate for constituents’ concerns.
• Fragiskatos emphasises ensuring residents’ voices are heard, without prejudging outcomes or promising specific remedies.
• The dispute underscores wider issues of informal crown land use, government responsibility for misleading boundaries, cost allocation, and policy for regularising long-term encroachments.

East London, Ontario (East London Times) January 19, 2026 – Residents in northeast East London confront a bitter property dispute as federal authorities move to reclaim crown land portions of their backyards, upending a 40-year informal arrangement near Kilally Road. Liberal MP Peter Fragiskatos steps in, scheduling talks with the agriculture ministry after homeowners face demands to dismantle sheds and gardens at their own cost.

How Did the ‘Bump Out’ Arrangement in East London Begin?

The controversy in northeast East London stems from a wooden fence erected approximately 40 years ago, separating residential properties from crown land tied to a federal research facility operated by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) near Kilally Road. Rather than following a straight survey line, the fence curved outward—or “bumped out”—around mature trees, granting adjacent homeowners extra backyard space on federal property.

AAFC explained that

“When the fence was originally constructed, it was built around living trees, following Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)’s general practice of preserving healthy trees whenever possible.”

This tree-friendly design, driven by environmental policy rather than any formal lease or easement, led residents to invest time and resources in the extended area, treating it as theirs without documented objection from Ottawa for decades.

Homeowners in East London recount maintaining lush gardens, erecting practical sheds for storage and tools, and even creating play areas for children, all within what appeared to be their bounded property based on the physical fence line.

Why Is AAFC Installing a Straight-Line Fence Now in East London?

AAFC attributes the change to practical necessities. The original wooden fence has deteriorated beyond repair, necessitating replacement with durable chain-link fencing. Crucially, AAFC opts for a straight alignment matching the official surveyed boundary, forgoing the historic “bump out.”

AAFC stated:

“However, over time and after consultation with licensed arborists, we have had to remove the trees due to age and disease.”

With trees gone, the rationale for curving the fence evaporated, prompting federal officials to enforce the precise legal perimeter of the crown land serving the research facility. This shift directly impacts East London residents who built within the irregular space.

What Impacts Are East London Residents Facing?

East London homeowners now confront stark realities. Any sheds, garden beds, decks, or other fixtures in the “bump out” zone sit illegally on crown land and must be demolished or relocated by owners themselves. Costs could run into thousands per household, covering labour, materials disposal, and potential landscaping restoration.

Residents express dismay, noting they received scant consultation before notices arrived last year. One homeowner described decades of upkeep:

“We mowed, weeded, planted—thinking it was ours based on that fence Ottawa itself built.”

The loss shrinks usable green space in already compact urban backyards, affecting families, gardeners, and storage needs in this northeast East London neighbourhood.

What Role Is MP Peter Fragiskatos Playing in the East London Dispute?

Liberal MP Peter Fragiskatos, federal representative for London North Centre encompassing this East London area, responded swiftly to constituent pleas. He announced preparations for a meeting with the federal agriculture ministry to address the backlash.

Fragiskatos positions himself as a conduit: ensuring residents’ frustrations reach AAFC and Minister of Agriculture Marie-France Lalonde directly. He avoids endorsing specific fixes like fence relocation or compensation, instead committing to “facilitate dialogue so all perspectives inform the path forward.” His involvement elevates the local East London grievance to national policy scrutiny.

Why Must East London Residents Bear Removal Costs?

AAFC maintains structures on crown land constitute encroachments, regardless of duration or informal tolerance. The emailed statement underscores that federal property demands clear boundaries for security, operations, and liability at the research facility.

Homeowners counter that government actions—the tree-sparing fence and tree removal—created the confusion. They question why taxpayers shouldn’t fund adjustments when federal decisions redrew perceived lines after 40 years. This cost dispute fuels East London residents’ calls for fairness.

What Broader Crown Land Questions Arise from East London?

This East London saga spotlights recurring tensions where crown holdings neighbour homes nationwide. Informal use often persists unchallenged until maintenance or surveys trigger enforcement. Legal precedent holds crown title absolute absent formal grants, but equity arguments gain traction: should governments compensate good-faith improvers or grandfather arrangements?

In East London, the fence’s origin as an AAFC tree-preservation choice implicates federal responsibility. Residents seek policies like occupancy licences, phased transitions, or shared remediation—precedents that could guide similar disputes coast-to-coast.

Could East London Residents Have Known the True Boundary?

No formal surveys or notices informed East London homeowners of the discrepancy over decades. The visible wooden fence, installed by AAFC, served as the sole marker, curving around trees in line with federal environmental practice. Post-tree removal, abrupt notices arrived without grace periods proportional to tenure.

Affected parties argue estoppel—reasonable reliance on government actions bars harsh retroactive claims. They await MP Fragiskatos’ ministry talks for potential leniency.

What Happens Next in the East London Fence Dispute?

MP Peter Fragiskatos’ upcoming meeting could yield timelines, consultations, or compromises like partial “bump outs,” cost-sharing, or temporary stays. East London residents organise petitions and community forums, amplifying voices.

AAFC might detail arborist reports, fence specs, and enforcement flexibility. Outcomes here could influence crown land protocols, balancing stewardship with neighbourly realities in urban-interface zones like northeast East London.

How Does This Reflect Government-Private Land Tensions?

East London exemplifies friction when public entities assert dormant rights against private investments. Historical tolerance via the tree-aligned fence bred expectations; now, straight-line enforcement prioritises legal purity over practicality. Fragiskatos’ mediation tests if politics tempers bureaucracy.