this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2026

25 points (96.3% liked)

Canada

11715 readers

479 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Related Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.

🏒 Sports

Hockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Toronto Blue Jays

Basketball

Toronto Raptors

Soccer

Main: /c/CanadaSoccer
Toronto FC

💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.

💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales

🗣️ Politics

General:
- Canada Politics
- FairVote Canada
Federal Parties (alphabetical):
- Animal Protection Party of Canada
- NDP
By Province (alphabetical):
- BC Greens

🍁 Social / Culture

Rules

Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

Indigenous ancestral remains found on Ontario property could cost this couple $319K (www.cbc.ca)

submitted 1 week ago by RandAlThor@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca

11 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 11 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 29 points 1 week ago (1 children)

A 2002 provincial law — the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act (FBCSA) — triggered what came next.

The couple was ordered by Ontario's Registrar of Burials to launch a burial site investigation (BSI) to determine "the origin of the site."

Absolutely insane homeowners have to foot the bill, and I guarantee before it could be legally required, it was a fraction of that cost.

The survey should be something a government agency does at no cost to the landowner.

The current system incentives hiding or destroying anything that is found.

[+] bluebadoo@lemmy.world -8 points 1 week ago (2 children)

The only reason it would be a fraction of the cost is because there would be no regulations and no requirement to adhere to certain standards. Of course it would be cheaper, but it would also probably miss a lot of evidence and destroy much more if there was no requirement to meet a standard. Probably no indigenous inclusion as well.

I do agree that the law needs to be redone to define undue hardship and set clear limits on what a homeowner is responsible for. Owning property is a privilege, not a right, and thus the homeowners should be responsible for a portion of it, but not a bankruptable amount. I have a hard time assessing what pity is deserved in this case, because they clearly had the money to buy a second, lake-front home. Not saying $300k is chump change, but this isn’t a poor family by any means.

I am a bit shocked that the homeowners were unaware of the amount of remains found in the area.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The point was if everyone has to pay for something, it drastically raises demand and companies know consumers have no choice but to pay someone

That will always raise prices.

And it's wild you're shocked that people are ignorant of what's underground on their property. How the fuck would they know?

[–] bluebadoo@lemmy.world -2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

It’s not about knowing, it’s about risk.

I live in an earthquake zone. I know before I buy a home, I should consult an earthquake map to see my risk of liquifaction or amplification and make a judgement based on that.

When buying a property, it is in the buyers interest to look at KNOWN hazards, assess the risk and make informed decisions. Archeological remains is a known risk of that area, just like flooding might be because of the lake front.

To add:

Niagara Region's own mapping tool shows that almost the entire region has "archaeological potential" — denoting the likelihood of Indigenous ancestral remains and artifacts being

Hill-Montour questions why Wainfleet Township issued the Reios a building permit given the region's history.

"Why would you put this person in this position to be where they are right now?"

[–] RandAlThor@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Well I think after this story gets out, people aren't going to be looking to buy lakefront properties there unless legislation changes. Who wants to be on the hook for 300-500k expense or more for some archaeological dig? This should tank the property values of the entire region.

[–] Typotyper@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

You can buy the property, just don't break new ground. And if you do, do it yourself so if you find bones, you can hide them before the contractors have to show up

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I should consult an earthquake map to see my risk of liquidation or amplification and make a judgement based on that.

And there are no known graveyards around here...

Are you saying everyone should pay for a 300k inspectionbefore buying land?

Like, are you seriously saying everyone in "southern Ontario's Niagara region" should just operate under the assumption there's human remains under their house?

I'm seriously asking, because surely you must mean something else and I'm just misunderstanding.

I even looked it up, it's 590k people, and 715 square miles.

[–] bluebadoo@lemmy.world -2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

No, I’m saying that it is up to the buyer to be aware of the risks they are taking with a purchase and that they accept them when they make that purchase. Just like any house, you get an assessment beforehand to make sure you aren’t buying a lemon. They wouldn’t pay $300k for an assessment; that is to dig their entire property. They might pay $1-2k for an archeologist to dig a soil pit and make a determination based on the findings. That is what reasonable risk avoidance looks like.

I’m also not advocating for the homeowner to liable for the entire price tag. I’m just in the camp that this was a foreseeable potential outcome.

[–] gramie@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

We are in the process of severing a half acre lot, and had to pay about $8,000 for an archaeological survey. It also delayed the process by almost a full year (and we have been waiting 5 months -- and counting -- of that for the ministry to accept the archaeologist's report).

That was about $3,000 for the archaeologist to do a literature survey of land use for our area, then $5,000 to dig some small holes.

If he had found any remains or artifacts, I'm sure that the cost would have ballooned to something like the original story. There is no way we could have done the severance then.

[–] bluebadoo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Thank you for providing some real life numbers and experience.

$8k of unexpected costs can be a lot for some people, and feel like a steep price for some holes to be dug. Doing these surveys does require skilled labor and a host of professionals to analyze and produce reports.

It sounds like much of the agony comes from administrative hold ups on the government’s side, which is where my attention would be focused if I was an impacted citizen. Permitting shouldn’t take years to complete with proper reports.

[–] karlhungus@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 week ago

It's silly to expect owners to know what's underground, hell most don't really know how their house works, we can't be experts in everything.

This totally makes it in owners interest to do the wrong thing and ignore remains. Government (I e. All of us) should fund universities(?) to investigate should not be a cost born by individuals.