ERIC KRAUSE

In business since 1996
 - © Krause House Info-Research Solutions -

_____________________________________________________________________________________

ERIC KRAUSE GENEALOGY

_____________________________________________________________________________________

FRIEDRICH WILHELM "WILLIE" KRAUSE
(January 18, 1897, Bischofswerda, Saxony, Germany - December 9, 1983, Leamington, Ontario, Canada)
and
MARIA [MARIECHEN] "MIETZ" KORNELSEN
(May 5, 1900, Tiegenhagen, Molotschna, South Russia - April 2, 1991, Leamington, Ontario, Canada)

--------

HEINRICH WILHELM "BILL" KRAUSE
(March 15, 1921, Tiegenhagen, Molotschna, Russia - January 15, 1980, Tampa Florida, USA - Interred Leamington, Ontario, Canada)
and
ANNA "ANNIE" MATHIES
(February 25, 1923, Alexanderkrone, Molotschna, South Russia - June 2, 1988, Leamington, Ontario, Canada

PARKS CANADA ACQUIRED LAND AT POINT PELEE

KRAUSE

See also: The Fisheries of Point Pelee and My Life at Point Pelee National Park - 1943-1968

PARKS CANADA SUMMARY REGARDING THE FISHERIES OF POINT PELEE

1954

DECEMBER

http://ink.ourontario.ca/browse/lp -The Leamington Post,  December 16, 1954 - pg. 5

  

 

Judgment has been reserved by Mr. Justice D. P. J. Kelly in the contentious court action over the rights of a fishing company to occupy a parcel of land within the Dominion Government Point Pelee National Park.  "

History of the point, going back to its days as a naval reservation, and the rights of squatters who moved into the area without contest, were all probed in the evidence.

Defence Council J. E. Zeron , Q.C. contends that the firm of  William and Sons are in fact owners of the land on the west shore of the point, where their  ice house and fishery buildings are located.

Mr. Zeron told the court fishermen have been using the same location for a century, without interruption or disturbance. The Krause interests he indicated. have a prescriptive right to title for this reason.

Evidence is that the Krause investment in equipment and buildings on the Crown Site totals $50,000.

Milton C. Meretstky, appearing for the crown, asks a declaration that the land does, indeed, belong to Her Majesty, the Queen, and further asks the court to return  possession to the Crown.

Mr. Meretsky claims that, according to  the evidence, title was not passed, during the century, from one owner to the the ordinary course, through conveyances, but by the instrument of bills of sale.

Early plans. drawn to clearly to define the holdings of squatters, and through which squatters were given grants, did not include the fishery operation, he contends.

Mr Meretsky  also adduced evidence to show that the lands of the point were. for time, leased  to the South Essex Gun Club. and rents were  paid for its use. He contended that this lease terminated in 1902, disturbs the chain of occupancy.

The law, Mr. Meretsky said, con-

See  POINT LAND --- Page 6

Point Land

(concluded from Page five)

tends that a prescription right to title does not exist unless the claimant  has been in exclusive, adverse possession for a period of 60 years or more.

Mr. Zeron said. "No one denied the fact that point Pelee belongs to the government. But possession, in this case, was never disturbed. It was open, undisturbed possession  for more than 100 years."

The Gun Club lease, he said, was given for marsh and dry land on the point.  The Krause buildings are on the beach, "and the beach by the greatest stretch of imagination, be called  dry land. Dry land is timbered,  high ground.

" Nobody asked these people to get off until recent years. They had 40 years enjoyment of an easement, leading to the fishery, and undisputed title to the easement.

"The buildings have been on the same spot for 100 years as they are today, and have always been used by fishermen."

Evidence was that the property, even though it has always been in the possession of fishermen, has changed hands many times. The Krause interests bought in 1937, from the McClelland Brothers.

Mr. Justice Kelly, during the argument, observed, "If this had been coming down through one family it would be different than coming down through strangers.

"Where does it stop? There are no fences or anything to show actually the possession of any part."

Mr. Meretsky said the Krauses are the only fishermen on Point Crown lands who are not licensed for business and possession  and the total fee would be $25 per year. There was also evidence, he said. that the Krauses did $40.000 worth or business in 1953. "so the licence demand was not unreasonable."

Mr. Justice Kelly said he would give judgment in the case sometime before the court sitting closes.

The Windsor Star, December 9, 1954, pp. 5-6

https://www.newspapers.com/image/501450788

1955

JUNE

TORONTO (CP) -- William Krause, Essex County fisherman, will retain possession of some 300 feet of land along the Lake Eric shore because his predecessors have continuously possessed the land for more than 60 years, Mr. Justice D. P. J. Kelly of the Ontario Supreme Court ruled.

The land, in Point Pelee National Park, is uded by Krause in his fishing business.

The Windsor Star, June 29, 1955, p. 28

https://www.newspapers.com/image/501468575

JULY

A long court battle between a fishery and the federal government over a tract of property in Point Pelee National Park finally ended last week with a victory for the William Krause and Son Fisheries.

Mr. Justice D. P. Kelly, of the Ontario Supreme Court, ruled in Toronto that Mr. Krause will retain possession of some 300 feet of land along the Lake Erie  shoreline because his predecessors have continuously possessed the property for more than 60 years.

The time occupancy was the focal point of a court fight in Windsor last December as attorneys for the crown attempted to prove that title to the land had been interrupted some 50 years ago.

History of Land

It was contended that the chain of occupancy had been cut in 1902 when the property was leased to the South Essex Gun Club for use of its members. Council for the fisheries denied the allegation, saying the lease covered only marshland, not the beach where the company's buildings are located.

It was pointed out fishermen had been using the same location for a century without interruption or disturbance. The investment made in the Krause holdings was valued at $50,000

During the hearing last year, the Point's history was probed as far back as its days as a naval reservation. The question of old-time squatter's rights was also examined.

http://ink.ourontario.ca/browse/lp -The Leamington Post. July 7, 1955 - pg. 2

1956

Probably by far the great majority of actions today for the recovery of land are brought by landlords or by mortgagees. A landlord entitled to forfeit the lease for nonpayment of rent or breach of covenant may do so by bringing an action for possession .....

... Whether that right be legal or equitable (Thorne v. Williams (1887), 13 O.R. 577; Jones v McGrath (1886), 16 O.R. 617; Turley v. Benedict (1882), 7 O.A.R. 300). Two recent cases in point reported in 1956 are Attorney General of Canada v. Krause [1956] O.R. 675, and Finnigan v. Dzus, [1956] O.R. 69. The first of these was an action by the Crown for recovery of lands on Point Pelee against defendants who asserted title thereto by possession (Re Bagshaw and O'Connor (1918), 42 OLR 466). Similarly by such an action a landlord may oust an overholding tenant whose lease has expired or whose tenancy has been determined by notice to quit. Any landlord who has a right by this remedy (Re Bagshaw and O'Connor (supra)). In mortgage actions a claim for foreclosure and the claim for payment. Similarly a mortgagee who is ....

Krause, Attorney General of Canada v. 675

C.A. Attorney General of Canada v. Krause Roach, J.A. 687

C. A. Attorney General of Canada v. Krause 679
 

... To establish title by possession as against the Crown the proof must be clear and unequivocal and the acts relied on should be regarded strictly against those setting them up, so that the interest of the Crown and the public can be protected. There can be no constructive possession as against ...

... Marshall v. Taylor. [1885] 1 Ch. 641: Littledale v. Liverpool College [1900] 1 Ch. 19; Leigh v. Jack (1879), 5 Ex. D. 264; Donovan  v. Herbert (1884), 4 O.R. 635.

J. W. Swackhamer, following: The lease to the South Essex Gun Club and payment of rent thereunder excluded ...

... K.C., in 8 D.L.R. (1913) p. 1021 at p. 1024.  Any purported transfer before 1937 was by bill of sale, which negatives any intention to convey an interest in real property. The conditional sale agreement of 11th December 1937 makes it abundantly clear that there was no intention to convey ...

... J. J. Robinette, Q.C., for the defendant, respondent: The finding of fact made by the learned trial judge, that successive occupants of what is now known as the Krause Fishery had been in possession of the lands and buildings comprising it since before 1880, was amply supported by the evidence. At common law time did not run against the Crown: nullum tempus occurrit regi. However, by the statute called The Crown Suits Act, 1769 (GB) , c. 16, generally known as The Nullum Tempus Act it was provided that 60 years' possession of Crown lands by successive occupiers would bar the right of the Crown. This Act was held to be part of the law of Upper Canada in Regina v. McCormack (1859), 18 U.C.Q.B. 131, and it was also held to be applicable to waste lands in New South Wales in Attorney-General for New South Wales v. Love, [1898] A.C. 679. It was repealed in Ontario by The Statute Law Revision Act, 1902, c. 1, s. 2 and schedule, and ss. 17 to 20 of that Act were substituted. Those provisions now appear, with some modifications, as ss. 3, 5, 6, 8-11, and 13-16 of The Limitations Act, RSO 1950, c. 207. It would appear, however, that the Ontario legislation cannot affect rights as between a subject and the Crown in the right of the Dominion: The British North America, 1867, s  ...

... (1) The Crown was in receipt of rents and profits during the 60-year period; the lands were in fact in charge, from time to time, of the proper officer, who collected revenue from them; (3) the rents and profits stood insuper of record within the period of 60 years ...

... Clarke et al. v. Babbitt, [1927] S.C.R. 148, [1927] 2 D.L.R. 7.

Failure to use lands for fishing-gear and boats during the winter did not interrupt the defendant's possession. The authorities are clear on this point ...

.. Henderson (1847), 3 U.C.Q.B. 486; McDonald v. McIntosh (1852), 8 U.C.Q.B. 388.

Here the occupation permit was granted in 1944, but we had already acquired possessory title in 1943 by a period [of 60 years of auverse possession. [Roach J.A.: What about] Grubb's possession during the tenancy of the gun Club?] Grubb said that the club kept the fishermen away only from the lands that the club used for hunting purposes.

The burden on the defendant is not to establish beyond ...

... [sequentry registered in the registry Office for the County of] Essex as no. 397 (ex. 3). This plan was approved and confirmed by the Surveyor-General in the Dominion Lands Office on 6th November 1889. The holder of each squatter is delineated on that plan as a lot and given a lot number. [Endowed on the plan is a key setting forth the lot numbers] ...

.... tions" (para. 2) and "that property occupied by him in his business comprising the parcel of land between his residence and the shore of Lake Erie having a frontage of approximately five hundred (500') feet" (para. 6).

Point Pelee is a peninsula shaped like a long and narrow ...

... triangle running into Lake Erie from the north shore.

In 1881 the southerly part was set aside as a naval reserve and that part was first surveyed in 1883. A plan of that survey is dated 27th February 1883 and was registered in the Registry Office for the County of Essex on 23rd October ...

... residence and the shore of lake Erie having a frontage of approximately five hundred (500') feet he is thereby referring to land lying west of the road and which according to Plan 397 was not occupied and claimed by any squatter as of the date of that plan ...

... conveyed was Lot 15, which is on the east of that road and to part of which the defendant now has title. It is on that part that he has his residence and when in his statement of defence he refers to "that property occupied by him in his business comprising the parcel of land between his ....

... an ice-house 18 feet by 30 feet in dimension and some undefined area of land surrounding those buildings, the whole having a frontage of 500 feet approximately measured along some line which may be, for all that appears, the road shown on the plan, the shore-line, or, indeed, a line described in the ...

... the Queen in right of Canada, and that the same comprises part of Point Pelee National Park."

When a litigant asserts that as against the otherwise lawful he has title to land by possession the onus rests upon him to prove it. This requires that the land be ...

... Q. [And what did you use  ... in that shanty] and 20 or 30 feet around it.

"Q. The shanty would be only 20 by 60. You would only use about 100 feet? A. Right around the shanty, 100 feet of beach front. I would have the shanty there and a place to pull the boat there scow [un] ...

... It is possible that during the fishing season there might be excess stakes piled here or there in the general area, or, indeed, there might have been times when they were all in use.

This is Mr. Grubb's evidence on that matter: ...

... The building or buildings wherever those buildings may have stood and the net-stakes were piled outside nearby; the boats were pulled up on the beach a safe distance from the water's edge. In each succeeding spring when fishing resumed the boats were launched and the other equipment was put to use...

... "shanty" as the exigencies of his fishing-operations required, and as occasion required he used some undefined area or areas along the beach for drying his nets. During the non-fishing months he occupied some bit of land where the boat or scow rested and some bit of land where the stakes were ...

... piled ...

The evidence of other witnesses called by the defendant covered the history of the fishery operations by successive owners subsequent to 1915

Over the objection for the plaintiff the learned ...

... of the lands in question in this action, the Crown was during the the term of that lease being "answered the rents" therefor.

What is meant by being "answered the rents" within the meaning of The Nullum Tempus Act? In Attorney-General for New South Wales. [1898] A.C. 679 at 686, it ...

... any right or occupation to any other person.

The defendant purchased this fishery business and equipment and part of Lot 15 in December 1937 from James E. and Harry McLellan. The sale of the equipment was under a conditional sale contract dated 11th December 1937. The ...

_______________

MAY 17

      

Squatter's Rights Only 'Trespass,' Says Appeal Court
Special to The Windsor Star

TORONTO — William Krause, Pomt Pelee fisherman, who won legal possession of one and a half acres of land last year at trial, in Windsor, lost it to the Federal Government of Canada in a judgment handed down at Osgoode Hall.

Krause had claimed squatter's right on the property and won his case before Mr. Justice D. P. J. Kelly, last June. The Crown appealed and won the appeal today.

Mr. Justice W. D. Roach ruled that Krause has not proven his t case with evidence that he has had continuous and uninterrupted possession. The justice stated that the evidence only established that over the years "there was seasonal trespass on the land."

The Crown won a declaration that the government is the rightful owner.

Krause had pleaded that he and his predecessors have been in uninterrupted possession of part of the lands for more than 100 years. He described his land as "that property occupied" comprising the parcel of land between his residence and the shore ot Lake Erie having a frontage of some 500 feet.

In 1881 the southern part of Point Pelee was set aside as a naval reserve and the land in question was part of a survey in 1883. A later survey was made and the Crown granted squatters' rights to lots occupied.

His Lordship's judgment was concurred in by Messrs. Justices R. E. Laidlaw and J. K. MacKay.

"What was more natural than that fishermen would as a matter of course, and unless there was objection, use the beach for purposes of landing and departing, and leaving excess equipment," the justice stated. "Such acts were mere seasonal acts of trespass and no more"

 His Lordship pointed out further that the Crown granted the South Essex Gun Club a lease for 121 years on 3,190 acres in 1885. Rent was paid until around 1904. In the Crown's accounts, that rent would be charged even if it was not paid, the justice noted, and, this indicated that the Crown had possession. Krause's portion of land was part of the land leased by the gun club.

Krause had purchased the fishery business and part of the disputed lot in December, 1937, from James E. and Harry McLellan and in that contract certain buildings are described as "erected on government lands adjacent to the fishery." On April 1, 1944, a building permit was issued to Krause to build on the government land. In 1951 officers of the national parks branch of the Department of Mines and Resources found that Krause was occupying additional land.

By a letter June 5, 1951, permit of occupation was cancelled and a new licence of occupation of an area large enough to include the site of the buildings and land was offered to Krause. He refused. taking the position that he had title by squatter's rights.

In allowing the appeal to the Crown Mr. Justice Roach direct'ed that the judgment be without prejudice to any claim which Krause may make within 90 days in any action for relief against the forfeiture.

Windsor Star, May 17, 1956, p. 5

https://www.newspapers.com/image/501484420/?terms=%22windsor%2Bstar%22%2B%22krause%22

Point Pelee Man Loses Land Fight ....

The Windsor Star, May 17, 1956, p. 5

https://www.newspapers.com/image/501484420

_______________

MAY 24

Flashbacks From Bygone Days - Thursday, May 24, 1956

http://ink.ourontario.ca/browse/lp -The Leamington Post. May 21, 1980 - pg. 4

1958

MAY 15

An action seeking a declaration for ownership of two and nine-tenths acres of land at Point Pelee, opened today before Judge Albert J. Gordon in County Court.

William Krause, Sr., and William Krause, Jr., both of Point Pelee, who have used the property since 1937 in operation of their fishing business, are claiming a prescriptive title to the property, or alternatively, became tenants at will.

The property was purchased in 1957 by John Happy and his wife Frances of Point Pelee. When the Happys informed the Krauses of their purchase the dispute arose.

The Krauses are fishermen and own the adjoining property.

The Windsor Star, Thursday, May 15, 1958, p. 8

https://www.newspapers.com/image/501612880/

----------------

1958

MAY 16

  • Adjourn Lawsuit Re Land Dispute

Judge Albert J. Gordon has adjourned indefinitely completion of evidence in a county court action involving ownership of Point Pelee property.

The suit opened on Thursday.

William Krause, Sr., and William Krause. Jr., of Point Pelee, are asking for declaration of ownership of 2.9 acres of land on the basis that they have used the site continuously for 10 years to dry fish nets.

John and Frances Happy, also of Point Pelee, claim ownership by virtue of purchase from the California heirs of an estate.

The Windsor Star, May 16, 1958, p. 5

https://www.newspapers.com/image/501613124

1959

APRIL 21

  • Pelee Action On Property Dismissed

An action seeking a declaration of ownership of two and nine-tenths acres of land at Point Pelee has been dismissed by Judge Albert J. Gordon.

William Krause Sr., and William Krause, Jr., both of Point Pelee who stated they used the property in question since 1937 in operation of their fishing business claimed a perspective title to the property, or alternatively, became tenants at will.

However, Judge Gordon ruled that their agreement of purchase of the fishing business in 1937 did not include the lands in question.

The dispute arose when the property was purchased in 1957 by John Happy and his wife, Frances, of Point Pelee.

Further, the Judge explained that Mr. Krause attempted to purchase the land in 1944 from S. N. Colquitt of California.

"In any event, no sale was ever consumated with Krause and eventually the lands were sold by Colquitt to John and Frances Happy," the judge styated.

The Windsor Star, April 21, 1959, p. 7

https://www.newspapers.com/image/504851604

_______________

 

1959

APRIL 22

  • Pelee Action On Property Dismissed

    An action seeking a declaration of ownership of two and nine-tenths acres of land at Point Pelee has been dismissed by Judge Albert J. Gordon.

    William Krause and Wil- üam Krause. Jr. both of Point Pelee who stated thev used the property in question since 1937 in operation of their fishing business claimed a prespective title to the property, or •alterrv ativelv, 'became tenants at will. However, Judge Gordon rul- ed that ther agreement of pur- chase of the fishing business in - 1937 did not include the lands in question. The dispute arose when the property •was purchased in 1957 by John Happy and his wife, Frances of Point Peleew Fuflher the judge explained that Mr. Krause attempted to purchase the land in 1944 from S. Colquitt of California. "In any event, no sale was ever consumated with Krause and eventually the lands were sold by Colquitt to John and Frances Happy," the judge stated.

The Windsor Star, April 22, 1959, p. 5

https://www.newspapers.com/image/504851700

1960

Property to the North of the Residence of Friedrich Wilhelm and Maria Mietz Krause

  • This was an appeal by the plaintiffs from the judgment of Gordon, C.C.J., Essex County Court dismissing the plaintiffs' action for a declaration that they had acquired a possessory title to certain lands at Point Pelee on Lake Erie. The counterclaim was also dismissed but there was no appeal on that part of the judgment. ... There was no dispute as to the paper title to the lands in question. The defendants had acquired it from the Colquitts on whom it had descended under the wills of their father and their mother. The plaintiffs claimed to have been in possession of the lands in question from 1937 when they purchased the fishing business including the vendors right, title and interest in among other things the property in question. The evidence of Krause, Sr. was that at the time he was shown this land and told that was where the previous owner of the business had spread his nets and he had thought he would spread his nets there too. In or around 1943 or 1944 Krause, Sr. entered into negotiations for the purchase of the land from the Colquitts and one of the Colquitts wrote to Krause, Sr. to say that if he would deposit $600 in U.S. funds in escrow they would give him an agreement for sale and a license to enter so that he could have ...

  • nection with his fishing business, and second by Krause Sr. who purchased the fishing business in 1937 acquiring with it the use of the property in question, until 14th March 1957. During this time he used the said property as a twine field, spread his nets, repaired the fences, cut the grass down and repaired the fences, cut the grass down and for a time had a horse at pasture on it. The paper title in 1936 was in the name of J. Colquitt who died in that year leaving a will appointing her sons, S. and H. Colquitt, executors. On the 5th January 1957, the executors conveyed the lands in question to the defendants, who, on the 14th March 1957, told the plaintiffs to get off the property. It is submitted that the possession of McClelland and Krause was open, constant and visible for a period of more than 10 years and that, therefore, under s. 4 of the Limitations Act, the title of the Colquitts was extinguished and they had no title to convey to the the defendants. Both McClelland and Krause used the property constantly, with the possible exception of a limited period in the winter, and they spread their nets sometimes occupying the whole field, sometimes part, but always in a constant cycle : Lord ... ...

  • Colquitts' title in 1943 or 1944 by correspondence is of no effect because the possessors' title had already been established . Even if there were an acknowledgment in writing Krause of the Colquitt title, in 1943 or 1944, the Colquitts had lost title prior to that date and an acknowledgment after title by possession is complete does not take away the statutory right which the possession gave: McIntyre v. Canada Co. (1871), 18 Grant 367. In 1943 and 1944 after correspondence concerning the purchase of the said property, Krause stayed on the property, used it as a twine field, paid the taxes and was not disturbed until Happy demanded possession, and he was there under colour of right. Krause after 1943 or 1944 was in possession under colourable title and any actual possession of part of the lot under those circumstances is extended by construction to all the lands within the boundaries of the description in the deed: Wood v. LeBlanc (1904), 34 S.C.R. 627. It is clear from the evidence of the Colquitts and from the documents, that in 1943 or 1944 Krause was given permission to have possession of the property, or in the alternative, the letter of 19th February 1946 from Crewe, a solicitor, instructed instructed Krause Sr. 'that you may use the property until the matter is cleared up', and that, therefore, there was a tenancy-at-will by that date under s. 5(7) of the Limitations Act. The Colquitts' title was extinguished on the expiration of 11 years from the date when the tenancy-at-will was created: Williams, Landlord & Tenant, 2nd ed., pp ...

  • Krause Sr. denied that such conversations ever occurred. He testified Q.  You have told the Court that there was never any discussion about you using the property and looking after the taxes until such time as the deal would be closed, is that right? A. Discussion with who? Q. With Colquitt and yourself. A. Well, the letter will speak for himself. Q. I asked you, witness, if there was any discussion. A. No, sir ... Q. Why did you pay the taxes? A. To protect myself and keep them off of the sale. Q. And it wasn't because of the arrangement with Colquitt? A. I had no arrangement with him. Q. None at all? A. No. Q. That you were to use it and look after it and pay the taxes? A. No, sir. . . . Q. Now, also, there was evidence my friend read from Colquitt. He says he had at least one telephone call or conversation with you in 1943 or 44. Did you ever telephone? A. I never talk over the phone to them. Q. You are sure of that? A. I am sure. I have previously quoted from the letter written by Crewe to Krause Sr. on 19th February 1946, in which he stated that he was authorized to inform Krause  Sr. that he could use the property until the matter is cleared up.

  • Counsel for the defendants submitted that 19th February 1946, was too late a date to permit the necessary limitation period to run as the defendants received their deed from the Colquitts on the 5th January 1957, which was the governing date and not 14th March 1957, when notice was given to the plaintiffs to vacate. ... I do not find it necessary to deal with this last question of law as I consider that the testimony of S N Colquitt regarding his telephone conversation with Krause Sr. is to be accepted both as to permission to enter and as to the agreement to pay taxes in consideration of the permission given. In so doing I accept the valuation placed on the plaintiffs' testimony by the trial Judge. In his reasons he stated that Krause Sr. as well as Krause Jr. had proved unsatisfactory witnesses and where their testimony was in conflict with that of the defendants he accepted the latter. This opinion would apply with equal force, should think, where Krause's testimony conflicts with that of other witnesses. ... On Colquitt's evidence Krause was placed in possession in 1943 or 1944. The question now arises as to whether Krause Sr. went into possession at that time as a tenant-at-will or, as counsel for the defendants contends, as a licensee. As to what is necessary to constitute one or the other, I refer to Denning  ...

  • Section 5(7) of the Limitations Act reads ... Where any person is in possession or in receipt of the profits of any land, or in receipt of any rent, as tenant at will, the right of the person entitled subject thereto, or of the person through whom he claims, to make an entry or distress, or to bring an action to recover the land or ....Counsel for the appellants contended that Krause Sr. was placed in possession as a tenant at will by S. N. Colquitt acting for his mother's estate some time in 1943 or 1944 as appeared from Colquitt's own evidence: but if not placed in possession at that time by Colquitt (for Krause denied Colquitt's evidence as to any telephone conversation between them in that period) then the letter from Crewe, the solicitor, had that effect as of 19th February 1946. He submitted that, having been placed in possession under colour of right, the possession of Krause Sr. was, after such time, possession of the whole property, any possession of part of the lot under these circumstances being extended ...
     

    • The Ontario reports: cases determined in the Supreme Court of Ontario (Appellate and High Court divisions)., Volume 23, Issue 1911, 1960, Krause versus Happy, pp. 385-396 plus

1966

JUNE

 

Expropriation of Point Pelee Properties - William Krause

http://ink.ourontario.ca/browse/lp -The Leamington Post. June 9, 1966 - Page 1

August

Purchase of Point Pelee Properties

http://ink.ourontario.ca/browse/lp -The Leamington Post. Aug 25, 1966 - Page 1

1969

  • At first, National Park status probably had little effect on the day-to-day lives of the naval reserve residents. Eventually it dramatically altered all the pre-Park use of the area, setting the stage for what Point Pelee has become today.
  • For example, by the 1960s, several commercial fisheries still operated from the Park. But the government's decision to acquire private land within the Park partly to "... improve the scenic drive" drove all but the Girardin and Krause fisheries out.
  • In 1962, the Girardin fishery moved north of the Park.
  • Seven years later, the Krause fishery's lease expired, and they too left. The demise of this, the last commercial fishery in the Park brought an end to an era which had lasted more than 100 years.

[http://www.pc.gc.ca/pn-np/on/pelee/natcul/natcul2_4_e.asp ]

Records of the National Archives of Canada

Claim of William Krause - Point Pelee National Park
1951-1956. File.

Title: Claim of William Krause - Point Pelee National Park.
Arrangement structure: Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
File part of: Legal Branch [textual record] (R216-715-8-E)
Date(s): 1951-1956
Place of creation: No place, unknown, or undetermined
Extent: Inventory no.: 22-7
Conditions of access:

File no. (creator) 482
Former archival reference no. RG22-A-2
Textual records 32: Restricted by law
Volume 77 32: Restricted by law

Finding aid no.: 22-7
Source: Government
Other system control no.: FIND022/2921
MIKAN no.: 1704719

National Archives of Canada ( http://collectionscanada.gc.ca/ )

_______________

Point Pelee, Ontario - DIAND -
Appraisal, Acquisition and Disposal of Land and Properties - Krause, William
1971. File.

Title: Point Pelee, Ontario - DIAND - Appraisal, Acquisition and Disposal of Land and Properties - Krause, William.
Arrangement structure: Department of Public Works
File part of: Registry files [textual record] (R182-282-2-E)
Date(s): 1971
Place of creation: No place, unknown, or undetermined
Extent: Inventory no.: 11-8
Conditions of access:

File no. (creator) X1653-737-8-75
Former archival reference no. RG11-B-4
Textual records 32: Restricted by law
Volume 5392 File Part 1 32: Restricted by law

Finding aid no.: 11-64
Source: Government
Other system control no.: FIND011/5209
MIKAN no.: 1684530

 Appraised Acquired and Disposed Lands and Properties of Point Pelee:

  • Roberts, John and Anna-Belle RG11-B-4

  • Cowell, Fred D RG11-B-4

  • Millian, William RG11-B-4

  • Noble, George and Helen RG11-B-4

  • Landon, Jack and Blanche RG11-B-4

  • Girardin, Thomas and Bertha RG11-B-4

  • Sikkema, Peter and Frances R RG11-B-4

  • Fullerton, William and Anna RG11-B-4

  • Colman, Marion RG11-B-4

  • Tavelre, Edward RG11-B-4

  • Wowchuk, William RG11-B-4

  • Kuliszko, Peter RG11-B-4

  • Sellon, Ernest H RG11-B-4

  • Macleod, Mary and Alex RG11-B-4

  • Turner, Robert and Esther RG11-B-4

  • Cooper, Daniel RG11-B-4

  • Tilder, Donald RG11-B-4 [Tilden?]

  • Anders, Franklin RG11-B-4

  • Giles, Helen RG11-B-4

  • Rae, William and Margaret RG11-B-4

  • Ponic, Steve and Jessie RG11-B-4

  • Stechle, Mary RG11-B-4

  • Eccles, John and Mary and Thomas RG11-B-4

  • Hirky, Wasyl RG11-B-4

  • Ellis, Isaac and Elizabeth RG11-B-4

  • Hungate, Clarence RG11-B-4

  • Wilkinson, Anna RG11-B-4

  • Herman, Cecil RG11-B-4

  • Hubbart, Richard RG11-B-4

  • Donoso, Severino and Margaret RG11-B-4

  • Trumble, Alfred RG11-B-4

  • Gerber, Richard RG11-B-4

  • Phillips, Lillian, M RG11-B-4

  • Williamson, Agnes - Price, Helen RG11-B-4

  • Williamson, Agnes - Simpson, Russel and Bleanor RG11-B-4

  • Williamson, Agnes - Kendrick Fred J. and Mildred RG11-B-4

  • Kendrick, Charles and Ruth RG11-B-4

  • Jablonowski, Henry and Virginia RG11-B-4

  • Lemieux, Florian RG11-B-4

  • Campbell, George RG11-B-4

  • Dietrich, Faye E RG11-B-4

  • Parker, Edward H RG11-B-4

  • Anders, Eunice B RG11-B-4

  • Campbell, Jacob RG11-B-4

  • Durocher, Claude and Alma RG11-B-4

  • Maenpaa, H. O. and Anna RG11-B-4

  • Cox, Arthur and Dorothy RG11-B-4

  • Moody, James RG11-B-4

  • Quick, Dobson, Peters and Morgan RG11-B-4

  • Nahrgang, V.G RG11-B-4

  • Fyall, Janet, F RG11-B-4

  • Deslaurier, G RG11-B-4

  • Sibley, Joann RG11-B-4

  • Chapman, W. and Mary RG11-B-4

  • Krause, William RG11-B-4

  • Slobadenuk, Alex RG11-B-4

  • Troutman, S. and E RG11-B-4

  • Lee, Mary Alice RG11-B-4

  • Hebert, Alec and Eva RG11-B-4

  • Zelezney, N. Est RG11-B-4

  • Coultis, J.R RG11-B-4

  • Stradek, Bern RG11-B-4

  • Girardin, C.L RG11-B-4

  • Locarno Apartments Limited RG11-B-4

    National Archives of Canada ( http://collectionscanada.gc.ca/ )

    _______________

Point Pelee National Park - Administration of Lands Outside Townsite - Fish House Site - Wm. Krause 1943-1957. File.

Title: Point Pelee National Park - Administration of Lands Outside Townsite - Fish House Site - Wm. Krause.
Arrangement structure: Department of Canadian Heritage
File part of: Park/subject classification system [textual record, cartographic material] (R5747-7-0-E)
Date(s): 1943-1957
Place of creation: No place, unknown, or undetermined
Extent: Inventory no.: 84-2
Conditions of access:

Textual records:  90: Open
Microfilm reel RG84 T-10485
File no. (creator) P16-21
Former archival reference no. RG84-A-2-a
Textual records 32: Restricted by law
Volume 1709 File Part 1=1943-1952: 32: Restricted by law
File Part 2=1952-1955
File Part 3=1955-1957

Finding aid no.: 84-2
Source: Government
Other system control no.: FIND084/14041
MIKAN no.: 849664

Point Pelee National Park - Purchase of Privately Owned Land:

  • Gillanders Copy RG84-A-2-a
  • Frank Anders [Orchard Site] RG84-A-2-a

  • Fish House Site - Wm. Krause RG84-A-2-a

    National Archives of Canada ( http://collectionscanada.gc.ca/ )_______________

Point Pelee National Park - Administration of Lands Outside Townsite - Fish House Site - Wm. Krause 1943-1957. File.

Title: Point Pelee National Park - Administration of Lands Outside Townsite - Fish House Site - Wm. Krause.
Arrangement structure: Department of Canadian Heritage
File part of: Park/subject classification system [textual record, cartographic material] (R5747-7-0-E)
Date(s): 1943-1957
Place of creation: No place, unknown, or undetermined
Extent: Inventory no.: 84-2
Conditions of access:

Textual records: 90: Open
Microfilm reel RG84 T-10484
File no. (creator) P16-21
Former archival reference no. RG84-A-2-a
Textual records 32: Restricted by law
Volume 1709 File Part 1=1943-1952: 32: Restricted by law
 

Finding aid no.: 84-2
Source: Government
Other system control no.: FIND084/5209
MIKAN no.: 841145

Purchase of Privately Owned Property:

  • Gary Adams RG84-A-2-a
  • Gertrude Burns RG84-A-2-aPoint
  • Jacob M. Campbell RG84-A-2-a
  • A.E. Casper RG84-A-2-a
  • Caroline Chamberlain RG84-A-2-a
  • Gertrude Chapoton RG84-A-2-a
  • Chorny (Family) RG84-A-2-a
  • Karl and Hedwig Christen RG84-A-2-a
  • Harold and Frieda Connor RG84-A-2-a
  • (Mrs.) George Cooke RG84-A-2-a
  • Daniel Cooper RG84-A-2-a
  • Robert Davies RG84-A-2-a
  • Helen Dawson RG84-A-2-a
  • Dillon and Matthews (Family) RG84-A-2-a
  • Severino Donoso RG84-A-2-a
  • Ellis (Family) RG84-A-2-a
  • Emery (Family) RG84-A-2-a
  • Richard Gerber RG84-A-2-a
  • Nellie Gillanders RG84-A-2-a
  • Gillanders Copy RG84-A-2-a
  • Charles Girardin RG84-A-2-a
  • Thomas and Bertha Girardin RG84-A-2-a
  • Leon Horan RG84-A-2-a
  • Richard Hubbart RG84-A-2-a
  • Jean Isaacson RG84-A-2-a
  • Newton James RG84-A-2-a
  • Ernest Kelso RG84-A-2-a
  • Madeline King RG84-A-2-a
  • Peter Kuliszko RG84-A-2-a
  • Harry Marchand and Jean Marchand RG84-A-2-a
  • Hugo McCormick RG84-A-2-a
  • Alice McCubbrey RG84-A-2-a
  • McGhee (Family) RG84-A-2-a
  • Leon McPherson RG84-A-2-a
  • J. Charles Maycock RG84-A-2-a
  • Anne Melenko RG84-A-2-a
  • James Moody RG84-A-2-a
  • George Noble RG84-A-2-a
  • Newell Olds RG84-A-2-a
  • Frank Anders [Orchard Site] RG84-A-2-a
  • E.A. National Parker RG84-A-2-a
  • Lawrence Peters RG84-A-2-a
  • Fred and Minnie Ponic RG84-A-2-a
  • Portelli (Family) RG84-A-2-a
  • Steve Pula RG84-A-2-a
  • William Rae RG84-A-2-a
  • John Ruby RG84-A-2-a
  • Rvettinger (Family) RG84-A-2-a
  • Robert Simpson RG84-A-2-a
  • W.K. Stoddard RG84-A-2-a
  • Ken and Shirley Stowe RG84-A-2-a
  • John and Jean Troup RG84-A-2-a
  • Robert and Esther Turner RG84-A-2-a
  • Guido Vendrasco RG84-A-2-a
  • Watson RG84-A-2-a

    National Archives of Canada ( http://collectionscanada.gc.ca/ )

    _______________

Point Pelee National Park

National Archives of Canada ( http://collectionscanada.gc.ca/ )

1970

Park Property Sales Increase

100 Acres Still Privately Owned

http://ink.ourontario.ca/browse/lp -The Leamington Post. April 2, 1970 - pg. 24

1971

LOT 15

ALL SUB PROPERTIES

COVER

      
Boundary Survey   Property Surveys

 

                      
             

      Natural Resources, Canada, www.nrcan.gc.ca - Canada Lands Survey System

http://satc.rncan.gc.ca/plansearch-rechercheplan-eng.php