Renfrew Landowners Association - RLA, 18 Feb 2020 2:52:20 +0000en-us<![CDATA[Public Meeting - Fri., Feb21st, 2020 -Ottawa River Flooding]]>, 18 Feb 2020 2:52:20 +0000<![CDATA[Public Meeting - Fri., Feb21st, 2020 -Ottawa River Flooding]]>, 18 Feb 2020 2:44:56 +0000<![CDATA[Forms]]>, 13 Jan 2020 3:08:37 +0000<![CDATA[Home]]>, 08 Jan 2020 8:23:47 +0000The Ontario Landowners Association OLA shall defend property rights in Ontario, promote the principal of strong local governments, democracy, and natural justice and represent the interests of both urban and rural Ontario communities.

The Ontario Landowners Association goals and objectives shall be to uphold fundamental principles of Ontario landowners property rights, of natural justice, and to preserve and protect the rights of Ontario property owners.

<![CDATA[5G WHAT'S THE HARM?]]>, 08 Jan 2020 8:22:36 +00005G WHAT'S THE HARM?

This 5G expert panel is a MUST WATCH - Renfrew County Residents for Safe Technology held a 5G Expert Panel Public Meeting in Eganville, Ontario on November 16th, 2019 - Media and local political representatives attended to hear an expert panel on the impacts of 5G technology. Fifth-generation wireless technology or 5G; refers to a millimeter wavelength technology that has never undergone any pre-market safety testing. Peer-reviewed, published science overwhelmingly indicates that cumulative daily exposure to wireless frequencies causes harmful biological effects. This group of dedicated and concerned citizens wants to bring awareness of and safety solutions to all residents and elected officials in Renfrew County about the potential implications of rolling out 5G technology in our 17 municipalities. Our sincerest gratitude to: Dr. Anthony B. Miller, Professor Emeritus University of Toronto; Mr Frank Clegg CEO Canadians for Safe Technology (retired CEO Microsoft Canada); and Ms. Sheena Symington Director of the Electrosensitive Society of Canada, as well as to the many residents and political representatives of Renfrew County who took the time to listen to our august speakers and self-educate on this most important health issue facing Renfrew County residents and all Canadians. Thank you all and thank you for watching, Renfrew County Residents for Safe Technology (RC4ST) - If you would like to learn more, get involved or support our efforts please feel free to contact us at ... In good health to you and your family.

<![CDATA[PUBLIC MEETING - Friday, September 21, 2018 7:00 PM]]>, 04 Sep 2018 1:42:00 +0000PUBLIC MEETING


FRIDAY, September 21, 2018
7:00 PM
Main Street


  • County’s Testing 5G Technology – Issues & Concerns WITH
  • Guest Speaker: Lynn Davis
  • Algonquin Trail (former CPR) & Land Titles – What You Need to Know
  • Voters’ Lists – Are they Secure from Identity Theft?

** $5.00 cover charge for non-members of Ontario Landowners Assoc.**

<![CDATA[IS RENFREW COUNTY'S EROSION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS - A PIECE AT A TIME]]>, 05 Feb 2018 2:54:51 +0000In 2012 Brian Lilley (today a radio host for CFRA) did an 11 min. video with Elizabeth Nixon, a long-time investigative journalist, who wrote a book called Eco-Facists. She lives on 28 acres in BC and through her own personal experience with radical conservationists that involved costly environmental studies to build a 2nd home on her property as well investigative research to learn why environmental groups had so much power and why property owners had little say on what they can and cannot do on their land. SEE VIDEO BELOW.

Brian brings up the example of the current "multi-use" trail called the A2A (Algonquin to Adirondacks) corridor trail consisting of 80 million acres - an ecological corridor that means no lands rights, no water rights. This corridor trail is planned to go through the central-westerly part of Renfrew County. We also have ongoing the Algonquin Trail (former CPR corridor), another multi-use trail on the eastern portion of Renfrew County. It seems the goal is to have HUGE tracts of land to restrain human activity and revert the land back to its natural wild vegetation before human settlement. But it doesn't stop there.... We also have the:

a) the County Official Plan that includes land designations (created by the environmentalist groups) such as wetlands, woodlands, wildfire lands to RESTRICT the use of land on PRIVATE property-- properties that DO NOT BELONG to the municipalities

b) the Community Improvement Plans where municipalities propose "financial incentives" as a "hook" to environmentally improve small businesses and residential properties for control under their authority

c) provincial Bill 139 (Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act, 2017) already passed by our MPP's and awaiting Royal Assent. - a bill Bill designed to give more power to municipalities and conservation authorities granting bylaw officers & conservation officers "warrantless entries" on private properties to ensure newly created environmental bylaws will be enforced in addition to creating "local planning tribunals" (an internal court basically) to make "rulings" against those private property owners who dare to challenge the "fines" for not complying to their bylaws

(d) provincial Bill 148 (Fair Workplace & Betters Jobs Act, 2017) making minimum wage increase mandatory, ultimately forcing small business owners to reduce their hours of operation or lay off workers. How many small businesses in Renfrew County will be forced to close?

(e) Federal - Small Business Tax Reform -- another attack against small business that may force eventual closures in Renfrew County and the rest of rural Ontario. How many PRIVATE campgrounds in Renfrew County will this affect?

(f) Federal Motion 104 - Ottawa River Watershed Council. Environmentalists seeking control of all use of water for conservation - another means for the control of water on private properties (i.e. wells, septic systems, streams, ponds, creeks)?.

Listen to this video..... a video made 6 Years Ago (2012) and just compare that to what is going on in Renfrew County right now, perhaps even purchase the book Eco Facists to get even more insight to what appears to be planned for our future in this county and rural Ontario as well..

<![CDATA[Trails strategy shouldn't be a priority, says former mayor]]>, 05 Feb 2018 1:38:05 +0000Kemptville Advance  |  Jul 21, 2011

The July 7 edition of the Kemptville EMC enlightens us to the proposed integrated community trails strategy." Really, it's an $18 million forecast expenditure over 20 years containing "enforcement programs" and "social marketing," two catch phrases that I really can't stand. Wonder what these folks have been smoking. Does anyone in their right mind really feel that there will be ongoing use of a trail between Burritt's Rapids and Oxford Mills?

We have trail systems in our community that are barely used now. I speak of the trails through the province's Ferguson Forest and the United Counties system in Limerick Forest. The limited use of these trails says to me there is not a huge demand for anything more. Labeling county and municipal motorways a trail system is a joke. It costs over $100,000 per kilometre to provide appropriate widening and a paved shoulder along county roads does anyone think that the United Counties will buy into that? Where this article really makes me see red is the way the statistics were provided to the press. A response of 450 surveys in a population (of at least 16,000 by now) is less than three per cent. If the response represents a family, let's say such responses might represent perhaps 1,000 souls or 6.25 per cent of the population. To me, such a poor response says people clearly aren't interested. Makes me think back to figures used when staff wanted to push a heritage designation down the throats of the folks in Burritt's Rapids. Mr. (Terry) Butler, a response of such a low percentage of the population cannot be interpreted as a "response from a lot of people." Wording of the article says, "The survey revealed the large majority of the population (85 per cent) use the existing trails," etc. The phrasing of that sentence and paragraph suggest the numbers reflect the entire population of North Grenville when in fact they represent 85 per cent of the 450 surveys submitted or just over 380 people. If the numbers genuinely reflected 60, 50 or even 40 per cent of the genuine population then perhaps we could take the report seriously but six per cent or less, really! I appreciate that the EMC is simply copying and using text provided to them.

On numerous times the United Counties has presented its plan for the eventual widening of County Road 43. Those of us who have seen the concept will recall that the plan already calls for both sidewalks and bike paths along the expanded roadway. Affording more than a single sidewalk along 43 will be extremely difficult financially let alone anything more than that. We have just been blessed with our annual audit report which substantiates the direction of council over the past 10 years, there is nothing wrong with our finances and never has been. Trying to impose the costs for some kind of unnecessary trail strategy on developers is going to ensure that our impressive growth up until now will certainly cease to exist.

We have hockey rinks, baseball fields, soccer fields, swimming pools and a perfectly good trail system. For those wishing to exercise we have a multitude of ways to accomplish fitness goals. Put the trails plan in the same place as we put the illproposed heritage designation. Roads in the urban area are in desperate need of serious repair and replacement. I can't see where council will find the funds to even accomplish that goal. Remember, it was Margaret Thatcher who said, "Social programs are great until you run out of other people's money."

Bill Gooch

<![CDATA[Letter to the Editor: Elizabeth F. Marshall]]>, 14 Dec 2016 3:02:44 +0000Dear Editor

It has been found that there is a why property assessment must be at the Municipal level.  This involves one's democratic rights and the ability of the tax-payer to have immediate recourse, not being thwarted by the Assessment Review Board process. 

The Board of Directors for MPAC is to consist of 8 individuals who are elected officials, officers or employees of a municipality, 5 representing tax-payers and 2 representing the province. 

Municipal Representatives - 7:

Keith Hobbs, Mayor of the City of Thunder Bay

Ken Hughes Auditor General - City of Ottawa, Past President -Ontario Municipal Tax and Revenue Association.

Dan Mathieson, Mayor of Stratford.

Bill Rayburn C.A.O., County of Middlesex.

Roberto Rossini - City of Toronto's Deputy City Manager & C.F.O.

Walter Sendzik, Mayor of St. Catharines.

Mary Smith, Mayor of the Township of Selwyn - Council Member County of Peterborough.

Could this not be considered a conflict of interest considering they can increase assessments for Municipal/Provincial Corporate interests? 

Tax-payer's Representatives - 4.

Alf Chaiton, President of Tweedsmuir Green Power Group, Senior Advisor to the Mayor of Ottawa, Senior Policy Advisor to the federal Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and Senior Fellow at the Centre on Governance, University of Ottawa.

Lesley Gallinger VP of Corporate Services and CFO for the Electrical Safety Authority (ESA).

Bev Hodgson, Barrister and Solicitor, Bev Hodgson Law.

Don Redmond, Royal LePage Realty past Ontario Hydro, past President of Holstead and Redmond Land Surveyors, led innovative technology, municipal, provincial and federal levels projects.

Some may have conflicts when representing tax-payers so can tax-payers rely on these appointees?

Province - 1:  David P. Setterington CPA Ontario and CPA Canada. 

Without the required members of a Board of Directors is MPAC in violation of their Act?

Secondly, an assessor is to live in the town, village, city, etc., that he/she is assessing.  This is why Municipal elections used to be yearly, because if the Councils or their assessors were out of line, you had the opportunity to elect people who would fix the problem of over-assessment and bad budgeting.

Thirdly, in "Investing in People: Creating a Human Capital Society" it states "Given the experience with direct democracy in (e.g., California)… It should not be used for ... the desirable level of taxes."  California almost went bankrupt, because of their democratic tax system. 

MPAC payment formula as of 2015:

$2.3 trillion (assessed property values) + 5 million (number of properties) ÷ 2 x (times) the amount that the Corporation considers necessary to pay for its operations during the taxation year.

The "New Demo-Progressive-Con-Liberal Party" has ensured you, the tax-payer, will go bankrupt instead of the province.  They're all the same and they are all to blame.

Elizabeth F. Marshall,

Director of Research Ontario Landowners Association

Author – Property Rights 101:  An Introduction”

Secretary – Canadian Justice Review Board

Legal Research – Green and Associates Law Offices, etc

Legislative Researcher – MPs, MPPs, Mun. Councilors

President All Rights Research Ltd.,

Steering Committee – International Property Rights Association

<![CDATA[PUBLIC MEETING - MPAC]]>, 29 Nov 2016 4:05:47 +0000<![CDATA[Meet and Greet - Federal PC Leader Candidate Brad Trost]]>, 24 Oct 2016 6:00:57 +0000

Time: 7:00PM

Address: 2398 Doran Rd, Pembroke, ON K8A 6W8
Phone: (613) 735-6969
<![CDATA[Official Plans. A Blueprint to Shut Down Rural Ontario by Donna Burns]]>, 24 Oct 2016 5:45:31 +0000The FINAL public meeting on the Renfrew County Official Plan Amendment 25 (OPA 25) was held on Tuesday, Aug. 23rd in Renfrew at the Horton Twp. Community Centre. The last of seven such meetings…. this was the LAST CHANCE to learn about the County Official Plan and the impact it would have on private properties as a result of “land designations” being applied to determine what type of regulations will be enforced on our land-use conditions.

Video from the last meeting

Many people have no idea what an Official Plan is. An Official Plan is mandated by the Province (Planning Act of Ontario) for municipalities to basically improve their infrastructure and issues policies on how land in their community should be used. This “land”, however, is land that belongs to the municipality or has control of….examples are parks and recreation, libraries, arenas, schools, churches, etc. (public services). It DOES NOT include private property unless there has been consent by the property owner to use his land for the purpose in providing a public service.

IF that is the case, obviously it is with the knowledge of the property owner. He’s been compensated for it and the consent should be recorded in the Land Registry Act. What the County was attempting to do was hold public meetings during the month of August when farmers are at their busiest, seasonal construction work is at its peak, and people are vacationing. The three big factors of concern were that (1) very few people understand what an Official Plan is; (2) the notice of these public meetings were only advertised in a few newspapers (not everyone gets a newspaper); and (3) the timing they chose to schedule these “public meetings” …..all with the appearance, this was intentionally planned with the hopes there were be little or no “objections” brought forward to their County Official Plan. In addition to that, there were also “rules” that unless you attended the meetings, you would never be aware that (1) they had a deadline of Sept. 30th to put in written submissions objecting to the Plan; (2) that you only had 20 days after the Plan was adopted to put in a second written submission this time to the Province (MMAH); and (3) you could only appeal the decision of the Official Plan to the Ontario Municipal Board IF you had previously put in a written submission. All these conditions based solely on your attendance at the public meetings.

Each member of the County Council as well as the Planners was provided with two reports for their consideration before they adopt this County Official Plan. The first report was Planning in Ontario, a report fully researched by the Ontario Landowners Association with footnotes included within it as reference for confirming the information provided within it. The second report was a Report prepared in 2003 during the reign of Dalton McGuinty (Small, Rural and Remote Communities: The Anatomy of Risk) which appears to be a blueprint of the government’s plan to shut down Small Communities, Rural, and Remote Communities in Ontario. Quotes under “Settlement Strategies” in this report spoke of: “Part of this settlement strategy will have to be devising innovative methods of planning for downsizing, or as defined above, planning for decline among existing communities”; and “convincing communities that their future is smaller”; and “working with those communities to achieve that shrinkage”; “Government services – especially education and healthcare – should be enhanced and strengthened in larger, better connected communities…”

This Report is 13 years old and we are now living and experiencing some of their planned strategies. We have the highest hydro rates in North America by a single utility that ONLY services rural Ontario. Our railway lines have been shut down, bus travel to the larger cities reduced, closing of rural postal offices – hours reduced in others, closing of some of our schools, the expansion of Hwy 17 closed for now; Canada Revenue threatening the closure of private camp grounds, in addition to losing services such as libraries, recreational programs, and so on and so forth. Now we are looking at enforced restrictions regulated on both waterfront properties and rural properties implemented through the provincial policy statement. These “regulations” under the umbrella of Environmental Protection & Endangered Species are designed to deny us the right to enjoy the use of our land, thereby making the land useless, decreasing its’ property value and forcing property owners to lose thousands of dollars on their investment….ultimately forcing the property owner to relocate elsewhere …”declining the population” and eventually “shutting down the community”. These strategies didn’t just happen overnight. It seems part of these “innovative methods in the planning for downsizing” were the creation of new legislation — The Endangered Species Act 2007, Provincial Policy Statements 2005 and 2014 … legislation that clearly allows the approval for some to be exempt from and private property owners to be charged with (e.g., developers in bed with municipalities draining swamps for more development in the cities, or municipalities allowing the dumping of raw sewage into the river). One would think this McGuinty Report was created from Hitler’s quote: The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions…”

After attending all the public meetings, the County Planner and Staff along with any public officials who attended some of the public meetings were informed of some of the items below:

  • As mentioned in both the Planning & Municipal Acts, the municipality must acquire the land with the consent of the property owner before they can do anything on it.
  • Any change where another entity shall govern the use of the private property must be in agreement with the property owner and registered on Title at the Land Registry Office; this is similar to an easement between Bell Canada and a property owner where Bell has been granted approval in the form of an agreement allowing them the use of a portion of that private property.
  • It is written in the Constitution that the government cannot interfere with any “trusts” or interests that do not belong to the province (letters patent) unless otherwise “reserved”, (e.g., MNR for wetlands) …meaning they (the province) cannot interfere with private property.
  • It states in the Municipal Act, any member of council, employee, or agent may be at risk of civil litigation brought against them for not acting in good faith.
    • holding public meetings without informing those members of the public, whom council considers may have an interest in the Official Plan, is “acting in bad faith”.
    • using the absence of attendance at the public meetings as “implied consent” to give the green light as approval of the Official Plan is not acting in good faith...
  • Using absence of attendance by the public who had no knowledge of the meetings or what an official plan is, to be considered as “implied consent” granting approval to proceed with the Official Plan, thereby bringing in regulated enforcement in controlling the land use conditions without the written consent of the property owner is illegal and unacceptable and definitely…..not acting in good faith as per section 448.2 of the Municipal Act.
  • This attempt of taking control of private land is expropriation without compensation – a major violation of the Expropriations Act.
  • There is a study by world economists like Hernando De Soto from Peru who did a world-wide study that proved Protection of Property Rights is the key element to Economic Development, ultimately bringing Prosperity to its country. This study compared and showed that those countries that do not have protection of Property Rights live in poverty. Why is Renfrew County taking the path to poverty by attempting to remove our property rights?

Through word of mouth and other means of communication, the final public meeting had standing room only. The County witnessed firsthand, from the attendance alone, that the “public” is not happy with the County Official Plan and does not support it.

<![CDATA[Electricity Pricing]]>, 24 Oct 2016 5:44:27 +0000No wonder electricity pricing is back in the news.  People across Ontario pay the highest electricity prices in Canada, if not all of North America.  This isn't surprising, though, because all one has to do is look to the politicians and their advisors.  This systemic problem isn't limited to just the Liberal Party – its all of the parties because this is the fashionable move to ensure some people have their pockets very well lined, on the backs of Ontarians.

As soon as the reports "Investing in People – Creating a Human Capital Society" (Investing) and "Small, Rural and Remote Communities – An Anatomy of Risk" came out, we have been seeing the fruits of government, and their cronies, labours.  It's almost like insider trading for these people. 

For example, in paragraph 45, page 47 of the report "Investing" it says:

(45) We recommend that the government make the option of market -based pricing, with peak and off-peak rates, available to all electricity consumers to promote conservation and consumption shifting…We believe that such pricing will also make it more economically feasible to invest in renewable generation facilities, such as wind, biomass, and solar power, in the province."

Now we know two reasons why we are over-paying for electricity.  There are more than these two reasons, though.  Continuing in this report, since 1999 to 2004, "Hydro One has spent approximately $500 million acquiring local electricity distribution companies.  Arguably, these funds would have been spent more prudently on improving the transmission grid or paying down electricity sector debt."(page 46).    

Then there is the contract between the province and the Korea Consortium, which includes Samsung and their energy projects.  In this contract it is spelt out that there is to be a "Working Group" comprised of eight (8) members, with equal membership from the Korean Consortium and the Government of Ontario.  And what is this "Working Group" to do, you may ask?  They are to:

  • Establishing its process for conducting the business of the Working Group;
  • Resolving issues that arise in relation to this Agreement, … the calculation of the Economic Development Adders.
  • Recommending suitable sites for Phase 2 and Phase 3 subject to existing transmission capacity or the expected expansion of the Bulk Transmission System …;
  • Reviewing the tentative schedule prepared by the Korean Consortium for each Phase, …;
  • … assisting and facilitating the Korean Consortium in securing rights of way for connection to the Transmission System …;
  • Establishing priorities among issues arising from this Agreement;
  • Negotiating Aboriginal consultation/engagement protocols…;
  • … resolve disputes between the Parties and escalating disputes … as necessary, etc.

So who is running our Ministry of Energy and even our government?  It would seem it isn't the province of Ontario, but Korea, as it has a monopoly. 

As for any of the other Parties, they have all kinds of avenues but just don't bother doing anything.  It would seem they are very good at paying lip service to the people with statements of "We aren't in power and they have a majority, so there's nothing we can do until we get elected."  After all, when it comes to those advising our political representatives, they all seem to be the same people saying the same things.  As expressed by D. A. O'Sullivan in his Manual on Government:

“The writer has faith in the political morality of our leading statesmen to the extent, at least, that no one of them, acting in an official or, a judicial position as advisers of the crown, as trustees of the constitution would permit his judgment to be biased by a mere party spirit, or for a temporary party triumph.  If it be otherwise in Canada, then it is time we were governed without party, as that term is now understood.”

May be it's time to be done with the party system in Ontario and look to Independents who might actually represent the people of their ridings, instead of merely trying to line the pockets of the "back-room boys" and their cronies.

<![CDATA[Archives]]>, 24 Oct 2016 5:43:44 +0000<![CDATA[Videos]]>, 30 Sep 2016 7:26:16 +0000

<![CDATA[Articles]]>, 30 Sep 2016 7:14:22 +0000<![CDATA[Land Designation Jurisdiction]]>, 21 Sep 2016 1:25:44 +0000What is the definition of private property

Private property is a legal designation of the ownership of property by non-governmental legal entities. Private property is distinguishable from public property, which is owned by a state entity; and collective property, which is owned by a group of non-governmental entities.

What is an Official Plan:

An official plan describes your upper, lower or single–tier municipal council's policies on how land in your community should be used. It is prepared with input from you and others in your community and helps to ensure that future planning and development will meet the specific needs of your community.

Definition of policies:

A set of policies are principles, rules, and guidelines formulated or adopted by an organization to reach its long-term goals ...

In a recent court case Niagara River Coalition vs. Niagara-On-The-Lake (Town), it states: …”a policy or guideline is not prescribed by law.  It is simply that, it is….guidelines for enforcing the Act and, as such, it cannot be replied upon as the law.

So now we know that “policy” and “Official Plans” are not legislation or any form of law which can be used to regulate against a private property owner……unless, that property owner has entered into some kind of agreement with their local municipality that enables the municipality

to regulate what you can and cannot do on your private property. As the owner of private property, no one, no municipality, no government entity has the right to zone or designate your land or private property without your consent.  You have to enter into an agreement with the entity that wants to change your land. If you don’t enter into an agreement, then obviously they do not have your consent. 

As stated in the Municipal Act, sec. 10 and 11 under Bylaws, it states that the municipality must acquire the land in order to exercise its authority under this or any other Act.  They can “acquire” land either through a purchase agreement, lease agreement or expropriation agreement. (Definition of agreement: a negotiated or typically legally binding arrangement between parties to a course of action).

Also, sec. 462 regarding drainage and flooding, it states a municipality must acquire the land and must make areas into park land to assist during times of flooding.

Under the Planning Act, sec. 25 it states in order for the municipality to change the use of land that would be attributed to the official plan, along with the approval of the Minister, they must acquire the land by purchase, lease or expropriation.  If a municipality does not follow this process, it cannot designate or zone the land because the ownership of land and the land title from the previous owner, has not been transferred and registered under the Registry Act or the Land Titles Act.  Without registry, there can be no designation because there has been no dedication.

Sec. 28 of the Panning Act refers to the requirements for the conditions to the sale of land.  This section also includes Sec. 34 (zoning bylaws) that states after the land has been acquired by the municipality for community improvement, it cannot be sold without a bylaw being implemented and that the purchaser, lessee or entity that received the dispossession of property (meaning: the wrongful removal of a person from his property by trick, compulsion or misuse of the law) from the municipality must agree to the land use condition and/or zoning bylaw implemented.

Constitution – Sec. 109:  Property in Lands, Mines, etc:  states that the government cannot interfere with any “trusts” or interests that do not belong to the province.  Meaning, if there is a Letters Patent on the said land and if there is nothing in this Patent that shows that there is something specifically “reserved” for the Queen in right of Ontario (meaning the province representing the Queen), therefore it (i.e. MNR for wetlands, etc) cannot interfere with private property.

This leads to wetland designations ….if the owner of the land has not dedicated his/her land, there can be no designation by any authority, including the MNR.  This is also established in the Constitution and the Criminal Code.

So what is the municipality looking at if it goes through the above measures which violates the Criminal Code and sec. 14 of the Municipal Act?

Sec 14 of the Municipal Acts states “A bylaw is without effect if it interferes a provincial or federal regulation made under such an Act (provincial law or federal law supercedes municipal law); or if it interferes with an “instrument of a legislative nature” (Letters Patent or Crown Land Patent Grant)

Under the Criminal Code of Canada, there are the following sections that can be applied if interference with private property exists: 

            Forcible Entry and Detainer, sec. 72

            Common Nuisance, sec. 180

            Criminal Harassment, sec. 264

            Mischief, sec. 430

And if there is thought that provincial legislation over-rules the federal act (Criminal Code), this has been settled by the Courts that it cannot.

Expropriation:  Sec. 6 of the Municipal Act states that a municipality must refer to sec. 6 of the Expropriation Act anytime they want to use their power to expropriate land from a property owner.  Therefore, any interference with the use, enjoyment, or operation of private property is an expropriation and is an injurious affect because the Expropriations Act overrules/prevails over any other piece of legislation.

Definition of Expropriation is the act of taking privately owned property by a government to be used for the benefit of the public. 

Definition of injurious affection under the Expropriation Act: where a statutory authority acquires part of the land of an owner (i) the reduction in market value thereby caused to the remaining land of the owner by the acquisition or by the construction of the works thereon or by the use of the works thereon or any combination of them, and (ii) such personal and business damages, resulting from the construction or use, or both, of the works as the statutory authority would be liable for if the construction or use were not under the authority of a statute…..

<![CDATA[North Renfrew United Landowners Public Meeting]]>, 20 Sep 2016 4:48:52 +0000Tuesday, Oct. 18th at 7:00 pm – Deep River Legion

North Renfrew United Landowners Public Meeting

Guest Speaker:  Len Harris, former Senator of Australia

Topic:  Information on Municipalities

<![CDATA[Public Meeting - Renfrew-Pembroke-Nipissing - Official Plans]]>, 09 Sep 2016 2:00:44 +00007:00 PM

ASTROLABE HALL -- 2nd Floor of Arena
(Agriculture Fairgrounds) on Astrolabe Road


  • County Official Plan – Regulates Use of Private Property
  • Did you miss the County Public Meetings?
  • Did you know your Absence was deemed “Implied Consent” for approval?
  • Do you know what an Official Plan is?
  • Are you aware you may have “Land Designations” assigned to your private property that may mean regulating the use of your private land?
  • Did you know about the deadline of Sept. 30th to submit your objection?
  • LAND DESIGNATIONS – What are they?
    • Natural Heritage Protection –Provincial Interest/Provincially Significant
    • Woodlands/Valleylands/Wetlands/

Come out and learn What Does Private Property mean to you as a Property Owner. Understand the Laws that Protect Private Property Rights. Take this opportunity to know your rights as a private property owner……and then you decide.

** $5.00 cover charge for non-members of Ontario Landowners Assoc. **

<![CDATA[About]]>, 08 Sep 2016 6:20:10 +0000
  • Aid landowners whose rights to own use, manage, enjoy or benefit from have been or will be affected or harmed through Government actions
  • Educate the public that the greatest threat to Ontario is excessive legislation and over regulation
  • To actively support those Politicians and Governments who demonstrate support for and encourage property rights and small, fiscal responsible Government and to work against those who do not
  • Support, advise and consult with Landowners Associations and affiliated individuals and organizations for the purpose of developing policy, objectives and plans of action
  • “Everyone shall have the right to own, use and enjoy property and shall not be deprived of those rights except in accordance with the principals of fundamental justice including full and timely compensation for loss”.
  • We cannot forget that our ancestors fought so bravely and unselfishly to protect and preserve our rights to life, liberty, justice, and we must continue to uphold these values and freedoms.

    <![CDATA[QUESTIONS for the County re AUTHORITY for LAND DESIGNATION]]>, 06 Sep 2016 3:01:05 +0000The County states under Sec. 34 of the Planning Act, the county may pass a zoning bylaw……

    Question #1:   Please explain under what Legislation empowers the County/Municipality the absolute authority to pass a zoning bylaw on PRIVATE PROPERTY without the consent of the property owner.  When referencing the “comprehensive zoning bylaw” that is interpreted to mean the control over the use of land or structures built on land, please show where it is written that grants this authority.

    Question #2: The word “acquired” is referenced throughout the Planning Act (sec 28) and the Municipal Act (sec 10, 11) which appears to mean that once the municipality has “acquired” the land, they can exercise their authority through bylaw or whatever.  Definition of “acquire” is to obtain.  Therefore, if the municipality has to obtain it, then obviously it doesn’t already belong to them, is this not correct?

    We do not want an “implied” assumption.  Instead we want to see it written down in black & white in the Legislation where the upper or lower tier municipality have legal authority to enforce regulation on private property without the consent of the property owner.  To give you an example of what is meant by “black and white”, refer to Municipal Act Reg 322/12 under Scope of Local Improvement (sec 2) where it clearly states the following:

    Scope of local improvement

    2. (1) If a municipality has the authority to undertake a work, including a private work, under section 9, 10 or 11 of the Act or under any other provision of any Act, the municipality may undertake the work as a local improvement in accordance with this Regulation. O. Reg. 322/12, s. 3.

    (2) The power to undertake a work as a local improvement includes, without limitation, the power to,

    (a) undertake the work as a local improvement, including undertaking the work on private property;

    (b) acquire an existing work and where it does, this Regulation applies as if the municipality were undertaking the work so acquired;

    (c) undertake a work as a local improvement for the benefit of a single lot; and

    (d) raise the cost of undertaking a work as a local improvement by imposing special charges, including special charges on a single lot. O. Reg. 322/12, s. 3.

    (3) Where a municipality undertakes a private work as a local improvement, this Regulation applies to undertaking the private work as a local improvement as if the municipality were undertaking its own work. O. Reg. 322/12, s. 3.

    (4) Nothing in this Regulation authorizes a municipality to enter and undertake a work as a local improvement on private property without the permission of the owner or other person having the authority to grant such permission. O. Reg. 322/12, s. 3.

    Looking at the above Regulation, it specifically spells out with respect to a municipality undertaking a work project as a local improvement, they cannot do so unless they get the consent of the private property owner. ---

    Question #3:  If the upper or lower tier municipality does not have authority as mentioned above, explain where they have authority to designate our Land Use on private property.

    Question #4:  Also, if a private property owner does not attend a public meeting where the County explains to the public they will designate a certain parcel of land to be wetland or heritage or whatever and that property owner is only given a specified time limit (what is it?) to “appeal the designation”.  It is legislatively stated in the Municipal Act, (sec 9) that a municipality has the powers and privileges of a natural person to exercise their authority.  Therefore, if that is the case, then how does an upper or lower tier municipality have any more right to decide how land should be designated on private property then the owner of the property himself….as a natural person?  And further, how can the municipality justify in dictating the property owner only has a specific time limit to appeal the land designation decision of the municipality….especially when they have no ownership on that parcel of land in the first place? 

    Further to question #4, we again refer to the legislative statement where the municipality has the powers of a natural person.  A natural person is defined as a legal entity for the human being that has the capacity for rights and duties.  Therefore, it would seem that a natural person would have to receive the consent of another natural person to either obtain possession or do something with property belonging to the other….would you not agree?  Therefore, please explain how a municipality would assume that a group of separate human beings or natural persons being present at a public meeting can give consent to a decision of the municipality on property that belongs neither to them nor to the municipality?   

    Question #5:  If a property owner has a Crown Land Patent Grant (a statutory instrument) for a parcel of land that gives him the sole right of ownership on that land where the Crown has no right, title or interest to it  …..  can the County or Municipality still designate that land?

    Question #6:  An Official Plan is NOT Legislation – it is a policy on how land should be used within the municipality.  However, if the county or municipality does not have ownership of ALL the land, then how can they dictate and enforce an Official Plan or policy on private property without the consent of the owner?  Which brings us back again to the question of “authority”.

    <![CDATA[Contact]]>, 06 Sep 2016 2:43:06 +0000Donna Burns, President

    John Cull, Vice-President

    Doug Shields, Director

    Robert Afelskie, Director

    Yves Leclair, Director

    Garry Burns, Director

    Treasurer – none available
    Secretary – none available

    <![CDATA[News]]>, 02 Sep 2016 8:02:09 +0000<![CDATA[Events]]>, 02 Sep 2016 8:02:09 +0000<![CDATA[Resources]]>, 02 Sep 2016 8:02:09 +0000