by BETTER FARMING STAFF
Ontario Landowner’s Association founding president Randy Hillier has split from the organization.
He says he is no longer a member of the OLA, the group that is widely credited for launching his career as a Progressive Conservative MPP in the Provincial Legislature.
Hillier disagrees with what he calls the “misguided” approach of the OLA’s leadership, using Crown patents to try to establish private property rights.
Better Farming staff called Hillier’s office in Perth, in Lanark County, repeatedly this week. He returned a call on Friday afternoon.
Hillier says he hasn’t been overwhelmed with telephone calls on this issue. He says he handles roughly 50 calls a day at his MPP office on a variety of subjects “and the calls haven’t changed much” this week.
Following the OLA’s path can be costly, Hillier warns. “You are going to find yourself whistling through a lot of money and losing. I don’t want to be associated in assisting in injuring people."
Hillier says he gets calls from members across the province asking for advice on Crown patent matters. Callers “erringly assume that what the landowners do I would be supportive of. That is not correct,” Hillier says.
“I wanted the general membership, the people that I have known for many years, people who have worked and supported me, to know what my position was on these Crown patents.
“I do not subscribe to the storyline of the OLA executive.”
Hillier says the OLA membership is split on the use of the Crown patent defense. “Quite a number of people in the Landowners have been telling the executive for two years” that they are on the wrong path pursuing Crown patents as a legal defense.
“These contrary positions were not afforded much light of day with the executive,” Hillier says.
He says the OLA executive is “misconstruing a legal instrument for transferring land . . . to believe these Crown patents are superior to the Constitution of the country and superior to the legislative authorities granted in the Constitution.”
Hillier cites two cases where defendants used Crown patents as a defense against charges brought about by government authorities. One is the case of Beamsville archery range owner Bob Mackie, convicted of failing to comply with a restoration order issued by the Niagara Escarpment Commission. According to a document Hillier posted on the Rural Revolution website earlier this week, published by the Ontario Bar Association by Newmarket solicitor Zella Phillips in June of 2011, Mackie’s defence at trial “echoed the position of the OLA, that provincial legislation is not applicable to property that has been patented by the Crown.”
Phillips wrote that “the defence failed and Mr. Mackie was convicted.”
Hillier says that court decision is under appeal. He expects that Mackie will lose again.
Hillier also cites a Peat Farmers of Ontario case. Hillier says members extracting peat moss were convicted in February of interfering with wetlands. Members had also used the Crown patent defense, Hillier says.
Earlier this week, OLA president Tom Black told Better Farming that Hillier “wants to step away from it . . . he doesn’t want it to affect his political career. He can’t justify it in his own mind.”
Hillier says, “What I don’t want is somebody else doing something that is injurious to people and having it ascribed to me.”
Hillier says he did not plan to attend a Landowners Association meeting in Lindsay this weekend. He broke his ankle seven weeks ago and the cast was removed on Friday.
“I never broke my ankle before,” Hillier says, and he didn’t realize how painful it would be. He says he is back on crutches until the atrophied muscles recover. BF
Comments
MPPs and MPs Should be careful about commenting on pending court decisions. This could be viewed as political interference and that is illegal.
I do not pretend how to apply the law but I do know right from wrong.
Canada Supreme Court has ruled in favour of the Letters many times. The challenge is to get there. There plan is to keep you in the revolving low level court until you are flat broke
People believed in this man when the protest days were on in Ontario, some said he was to radical . We put him in as MPP. The only think I know of him now is a private members bill On PIT BULLS. There must be something in the drinking water at Queens Park, Common Sense is in the toilet
One has to question if we are getting good value and legislation from MPPs
We have a 16 billion dollar debt in Ontario and now we have after the fact solutions
The last Liberal strong hold is Toronto. Toronto people want wind mills, land conservation and to hug big trees because they paved over their city. Toronto people tell rural people the way they should live and how to treat the land that they own. Seems wrong. I think what has happened here is that Mr. Hiller has been told to keep a low profile. Stirring up a lot of noise on Land grants that could see the end of the wet lands act that could be gone, along with the green belt and Niagara Escarpment Commission will not win the hearts of people in Toronto to vote out the Liberals.
What we have seen over time is Government Creep. Small laws passed, not challenged and the laws creeped to cover more and more. Really if the Government wants Bob Mackie's land then buy it from him. The Government did not take the time to talk to any property owner if they supported the Green Belt, the Niagara Escarpment Commission or the Wet Lands Act. No they passed a law or laws and hope that we all become submissive as we have. If the Land Grant Patents are useless, then why doesn't someone who keeps saying so, direct us to the amendment that states the patents are no longer valid to clear all of this up.
In simple talk a Government is to Govern not rule. Mr. Mackie has taken on a lot and has my support to see this to a conclusion.
What I find interesting about this and other things Mr Hillier has said recently on this topic, is that he is either ignorant of or intentionally misleading. { I prefer the "ignorant of" end of this } In the case of Bob Mackie that Randy cites, we find this: "...the defence failed and Mr. Mackie was convicted..." "...Hillier says that court decision is under appeal. He expects that Mackie will lose again..." Ok, there is a problem here. Mr Mackie was tried first by a Justice of the Peace. A J.P. does not have the competency to hear a land grant case, they don't even have to be lawyers. It is an appointed position that requires no formal legal training before appointment. In other words, your dentist could end up as a JP. So Mr Mackie appealed to a court of higher competence of which there are only two. The Superior court of Ontario and the Supreme court of Canada. Bob didn't lose, he appealed a decision that should never have been rendered in the first place. When Mr Hillier comments that he expects Mr Mackie to lose again, he is treading dangerously close to that fine line between expressing his opinion, and a public official appearing to try to influence the outcome of a legal decision. Lets go back to teh Mackie case for a moment since it is frequently teh center of discussion. Here is an excerpt from a document called "Response to the Ontario Bar Association paper “Back Off Government: What Municipal Lawyers Need to Know about Crown Patents.” I found whiles searching the net. It is a thorough and scholarly paper citing numerous examples of case law up too and including the Supreme court that I think puts the issue to rest, but read it for yourself and you decide. "...the Crown has relied upon and the court is instructed by a case called “Hamilton Harbor Commissioners vs. The City of Hamilton et al.” from (1978) O.J. No. 3555 from the Ontario Court of Appeal. In the appeal court’s decision, the court below is quoted in its ruling that the legislative authority to control the use of land belonging to the province belongs to the province under the British North America Act, section 92(13) or subsection 16. The heading of those sections are “Property and Civil Rights in the Province” and that’s subsection 13, and the heading for subsection 16 is “Generally all things local and private in Nature in the Province.” Now lets look at this statement. You will note that she states “the legislative authority to control the use of land belonging to the province belongs to the province under the British North America Act, section 92(13) or subsection 16.” and she is correct, but Mr. Mackie’s property does not “belong” to the province or the Crown. As for the case that the Crown presented…the City of Hamilton would be presenting due to its authority over “public property” and the Harbor Commission is a federal entity, so it stands to reason that the “public property” (soil and/or dirt would be administered by the province) referred to would be “in the province”. As for “all matters local and private in Nature in the Province” again that only stands to reason as it also BELONGS to the province it would have legislative authority over it. Since the creation of the BNA there has been a struggle between the Feds and the Provinces as to who has control over what…but that isn’t private property. As for Bob Mackie…well he owns his own patented property and he continues to stand on his “right of claim” against all the world, including the province, the Niagara Escarpment and the Queen..." I have no personal bones to pick with Mr Hillier. I hope he reads this and understands his errors and changes his mind. It would only help all of us engaged in the fight for property rights against a large overreaching and ever growing government and we could sure use everyone's help, including Mr Hilliers.
THE MAN WILL NOW HAVE HIS TIME IN AS mpp, he led ola got a name. now keep mouth shut get pension if voted out,.. he wins.
it happens all the time.
When Randy became our MPP we thought we finally had someone to truly represent the small guy, the property owner, the rural people and so we and all OLA members worked diligently for him. Isn't this a typical politician or will he maybe cross the floor to McGuinty's team. Doesn't he look like a McGuinty member now?
You have lost a lot here Randy!
Wouldn't everyones tune be a little different if they actually all hads the chance to play politican for a day...I can tell you one thing not many of you would last! There is a lot to being in Randy's position and until people see that Randy is just one person and can't snap his fingers to change law only then will you understand some of the tactics used to try and keep a straight and honest path with his supporters. He is a man of his word and I support him all the way...Think for yourselves people and investigate the patent grants before you jump up and condenm Randy for his choice.
Randy was hardly "forced" into politics. He knew what he was getting into, and he knew there would be pressure applied to soften his stance vis a vis land rights and the OLA. For my part, I'd LOVE to be a politician for a day. No longer mind you, but it would be a day the legislative assembly would not soon forget. !
Sorry Randy ... you lost me on this one. I was one of those people that supported, worked and helped to empower you. I'm embarassed by you now. This whole smear campaign makes NO SENSE -- but that, it seems, is what "politicians" do best. :'(
I have looked at the Ontario Bar Association paper and had noticed that in many ways it confirmed the research of the OLA. In other ways it does not give all the information and the reader is left with the impresssion that reflects negatively on the Crown Land Patents. When the paper cites court cases that speak against the Patents it can only come up with Mackie's case but leaves out many court cases that speak for them. The OLA, on their website, has a detailed response to the Bar Paper, that is well researched, very detailed, and as allways very well referenced. Interestingly, even though that response was up since September of last year, no attempt has been made to prove anything in that response as incorrect. Bob Mackie has appealed his conviction and is waiting weather that will be granted or not. The appeal hearing was very interesting in what the Crown's lawyer had to say why Mackie should not be granted an appeal. The only reason the lawyer could come up with is that the Crown Land Patent issue will open up a can of wormes. I have looked at a lot of the Patent information and have extreme difficulty to come up with any potential arguments against the Patents and was looking forward to what a professional lawyer would come up with. I was very disapointed as I think the Lawyer should have been able to come up with a better argument than a can of worms. Interestingly enough there is a fellow near Ayr that got convicted by the local Coservation Authority that allready has won his right to appeal with the Crown Land Patent defense. One thing the nay sayers are right about, it costs a lot of money to get your rights, many of the precedent setting court cases that support the patents were won at the Superior Court of Canada. The Crown does not want anyone to win in court with a Land Patent (to open up a can of wormes so to speak), so they keep appealing with our money till hopefully the induvidial will give up and/or goes bankrupt. So many people seem to accept that we can not have our property rights because it will cost to much to get them. This is unacceptable, the government and their representatives should help us get our existing rights not prevent us from getting them. It is just plain wrong that for an induvidial to get their existing rights they have to stand up to the financial might of their very own government. Fred Probst
Randy has done a lot of good work and I will still support him if he works for all people of Ontario. I know Randy he likes to control things. The OLA now has a six-person executive and a board of directors that make decisions of what we support. Hillier no longer has any influence over the executive. The OLA executive was unanimous in bringing forward the Crown Land Patent Grant initiative. The OLA members that he mentioned in the Better Farming story are no longer in good standing with OLA. They have broken off and are pursuing their owns goals. This can happen with any group. It happened with Grimsby Conservation Club. For Hillier to publicly discount the people that put him in Queen’s Park is wrong. I will not bash him publicly but I have gone into damage control and I am relentless.
I don,t support any of their ideas period. Every land owners got a right and its nice to have a law that keeps us inline. I wouldn,t like a landowner next to me that could put up a chemical dump over night and be legal.
Every group has their misfits and so-call do gooders that is more of a danger to the people of the country side than the good that they say they are doing.
Every body has a right to a certain extent .
You don't understand common law or what the OLA is all about. Can you point to any other organization that has done more to prevent the further erosion, if not the restoration of land rights than this group? Credit needs to be given to Mr Hillier for founding the OLA in the first place. I do not understand why he now opposes what is arguably the single most effective tool we have to hold government at bay. If I was your neighbour and set up that chemical plant, you could sue me with a tort of nuisance for fouling your "soil , water or air". Land grants are also known as good neighbour papers.
In spite of this difference of opinion, it serves none of us to burn brigdes or to attack each other and forget that Mr McGuinty, not Mr Hillier is the problem.
What the heck is the sense of suing your neighbour if he polluted your water or air etc. it all comes down too you have to move from your homestead. How can you put a price on that. The working family farmer is at the murcie of the rich and famous and there,s not much we can do. O yes we can run for goverment and become greedy people just like them and couldn,t care less about the rest, and its time for your pocket full of money and a great retirement fund. Look at all the houses going up away from the cities and there is nothing you can do if your neighbour decides to start building a big sub division ,speed your hard earn money on a lawyer then go to the poor folk home.
Editor's note: In accordance with our guidelines a deletion has been made from this unsigned comment
The sense in it is that if you knew yioru neighbour could sue you for dirtying yoru soil, air or water, you would behave rationally and thinnk twicde maybe three times before doing anything that might impinge on his rights to enjoy his "air, water and soil". What people do now, is to use their municipality to be their bully so they don't have to deal witht eh roblem like an adult.
One more note. YOu don't need to spend your fortune on a lawyer. Small claims court is the arena for this, and taht doesn't cost you anything compared to hiring a lawyer.
Unsigned attack deleted
Timing is everything. It is interesting now that Mr. Hillier publicly denounces the validity of the Crown Land Patent Grants when Mr. Mackie's case is awaiting a decision from the Supreme Court level. ...Who stands to gain the most on the validity of the Crown Land Patent Grants - the government or the landowners.
How can the judge rule that Canada owns all the lands when in fact the crown owns all the lands of Canada and the same crown granted the land patents?
The Canadian Constitution patriated in 1982 seems to be overruling Crown land grants of early years but it is for the lawyers to work out.The OLA is at present steering landowners in wrong direction.
Post new comment