Photo: Tom Black
by BETTER FARMING STAFF
A founder and former president of the Ontario Landowners Association has thrown a bombshell into the debate over land patents and property rights, a festering topic in rural Ontario.
“Crown Patents are of little use in defence of property rights except in the most nuanced, rarest and unique of circumstances,” Randy Hillier, now a Progressive Conservative MPP, wrote in a statement published on Monday. “It is time for people to recognise the reality that the law is not on their side regarding property rights.”
However, Tom Black of Ottawa, the current OLA’s president, says the organization will not be deterred. “We are very resolved in our push to search out the value of patent grants.”
Two hundred years ago, Crown patents conveyed land grants to settlers. The Ontario Landowners Association believes that the Constitution Act of 1867 limits provincial authority to public or Crown property and interests. Therefore the province can’t require them to adhere to what the OLA refers to as “an overwhelming number of statutory environmental restrictions and conservation practice initiatives in the name of ‘the public good.’”
The Ontario Landowners Association has been encouraging its members to apply for their Crown land patent documents and also selling CDs on the topic. The OLA will release a statement today “with our side of the story.”
Hillier’s statement condemning land patents was published on the Rural Revolution website, under the heading “Crown Patents- I Wish It Were True.” That website has been mostly inactive for several years. Hillier wrote that he was quoting from opinions of three lawyers that weren’t named.
“I feel I have an obligation to caution you regarding much of the information that’s out there and provide you with some facts and informed positions on Crown Patents,” Hillier wrote.
Black described members’ reactions as “somewhere between confused and feeling they have been deserted. . . . They feel like he has let them down.” He says he received a number of angry phone calls from OLA members yesterday. “I can understand that.”
Black says the OLA leadership kew that Hillier was not in favour of property rights for seven or eight months but the general membership likely didn’t know that. “I knew he was going to release some kind of a statement,” Black says.
Hillier “feels it is something he can’t support,” Black said. “He doesn’t think they are worth what we feel they are worth.”
He 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.”
Black says it’s important to remember that “we wouldn’t be here,” if not for Hillier’s leadership.
Black says the OLA remains convinced that Crown patents “are valid documents . . . They have a certain amount of property rights embedded in them. The trouble is that we have to take them to Superior and Supreme courts to get these rights identified.”
Hillier could not be reached last night. A posting on the Rural Revolution website, with a link to Hillier’s Facebook page says “I will continue advocating to entrench property rights in the constitution to provide real protection from unjust government legislation.” BF
Comments
A very honourable lawyer and member of the “Queen’s Council” registered a land deed in 1982. The front page of the deed states: To have and to hold unto the said Grantee its heirs and assigns to and for them and their sole and only use forever. Subject nevertheless to the reservations, limitations, provisos and conditions expressed in the original grant thereof from the Crown. The said Grantors Covenant with the said Grantee That they have the right to convey the said lands to the said Grantee notwithstanding any act of the said Grantors And that the said Grantee shall have quiet possession of the said lands, free from all incumbrances…… That affirmation says volumes. The land patents are ‘contracts’ with the Sovereign, for the most part, but it is imperative that one looks at the date the grant was registered as every grant is unique. What Mr. Hillier is neglecting to convey is the fact that many land grants in Ontario have provisos dealing directly with our Sovereign domestic food laws. While the land patents are crucial prerogatives (as with Sovereign contracts) they are also public documents. Ancient laws, pre-Magna Carta, dictates these public contracts are to be stored in the County Seat. But Mr. Hillier is ignoring the fact that the land grants are just one document in a myriad of conveyances that relate to each and every parcel of land. Pre-land grant documents relating to property determine the rights, duties and obligations to the said parcels. The land patents awarded individual rights to the “person” long before the collective rights of our municipal structure was diagnosticated. As Lt. Gov. Simcoe stated in his first speech to Parliament, the Crown gave “possession of the soil and climate” to individual farmers. If the Queen wishes to retain Sovereign rights to lands in Ontario, Mr. Hillier's quest for “property rights” as he perceives them to be, will never be achieved as “land” in Ontario is a “possession”. If Mr. Hillier, as a member of elected Parliament representing the Queen in the Right of Ontario, refuses to acknowledge the validity of the Sovereign land Grants the farmers possess, then Mr. Hillier should be willing to accede the rights to things “OF” the soil in favour of the land owner. Mr. Hillier, as an MPP, should release all farmers of their obligations to the public. But I will credit Mr. Hillier with his statement: “I feel I have an obligation to caution you regarding much of the information that’s out there and provide you with some facts and informed positions on Crown Patents” I concur with that observation while questioning how “informed” he really is in regards to land grants. Land patents could be described as the modern foundation of this province. It is an extremely complex and convoluted issue interwoven into our fundamental social fabric on many dimensions. It is a topic that is in desperate need of comprehensive research if, we as a society, wish to retain our right to our Sovereign domestic food supply law. There is a difference between what is “legal” and what is “lawful”. Mr. Hillier would be well advised seek the truth behind the land patents if he genuinely interested in protecting the public. joann vergeer
Randy why this way?
I have considered Mr. Hillier a friend. Friends can disagree on some issues and still remain friends. Randy you have done some good work at Queen’s Park and before as president of the Ontario Landowners. You have always been a champion for Property Rights and the people of Ontario. I have strongly supported you and your efforts and our combined efforts and I will continue to do so on issues that benefit the people of Ontario.
On this one issue I must disagree.
On this one I believe you are wrong and missing the point.
You were wrong to make your opinion about the Patent Grants public. You know from your past experience that it is the opinions of bureaucrats and planners that been the cause of many of our problems. You cannot dismiss the hard work of so many that are on your side publicly and expect continued support.
Do you have your Patent? Do you get a permit for everything you do on your property?
Any effort to have private property secured for the property owner is not a wasted effort. The Patent Grants are a tool that we use along with many others to secure property, and you know Property Rights secure all other rights.
With this one action you have lost a lot of unrecoverable support from Landowners and PC party members across Ontario.
Randy Hillier you were one the first to step forward and help me in my fight. As the first president of the Ontario Landowners Association you taught us how to fight and recognize government and non-government abuse. All our efforts in the past have not brought me any closer to some closure.
Research of the Patent Grants by my lawyers, our research team, a private investigator and friends have uncovered documents and old laws that have been kept hidden from the public and MPPs. I am on the Front Line and the Patents have brought me closer to closure than any of our efforts in the past.
Win, lose or draw I am in this for the long haul. You taught me that, not to compromise one’s principals. We are all in this for the same reasons, to secure property rights for the people of Ontario. There may be more than one way to get there. In the same way they’re many ways to get Queen’s Park.
2012 is the (Year of the Landowner)
Bob Mackie
Truth, accountability and clear thought do not come easily to politicians as we mqay be seeing here. We should be forever thankful for those in the farm community diligent and accurate enough yo do the kind of research Ms Vegeer has done. Thank you for staying the course of what is right and just. Given that this epiphany from on high has come from Mr Hiller will this be the end of the Liz Marshal travelling road show?
I agree with Joann Vergeer's comments, but would include the "rights" apply not just to farmers but to all who were granted land aas a means of settleing the Ontario befpre amd after 1812 and prior to 1869. Bob Fowler of OPERA (the Ontario Property and Environmental Rights Alliance) formed in the early 90's was invited to Lanark to speak about land owner rights at the inaugoral meeting of the Lanark Landowners' Association. So when I received Randy's email on Sunday, March 11, and read his supporting documents, I sent the following message to Randy, The crux of which is the landowner must read carefully what the letters patent have to say, before considering any action. Hi Randy, The Crown land patent issues are murky indeed. The 1st relates to what or which crown is being referenced? There are the Province, the Federal Govt, and then (prior to Apr 1st, 1869: see Public Lands Act Sec. 58(3)) granted by the British Crown, e.g. Victoria, George III,and so on. It is this latter class of Letters Patent which provide rights to the grantee (FOREVER! !) Thus Ontario recognizes in the Public Lands Act that patents prior to 1869 exist in law and remain valid. Much like the Treaty rights stemming from early Crown treaty agreements with aboriginals at the time, and which our Supreme Court continues to uphold. Secondly, these patents still go with British Common Law which may have been amended, by the legislature or case law from time to time, but their purpose remains the same: to settle disputes or potential disputes among neighbouring landowners private, public and corporate. Further, the issues are further complicated by the Constitution Act to which you refer which accorded rights for Navigation and Fisheries to the Federal Government, not the Province Do the regulatory rights of the Federal Acts pertain to private land granted before 1869? (and is it worth the court costs these days, to attempt to find out? MNR may offer "administrative rulings for guidance", (e.g. when it comes to severances) but the Federal Law on Navigation states that "navigability is a matter of fact, to be determined by the courts", So in the Credit River dispute, the court first went to some lengths to ascertain if the river flowing through land patented about 1820 was in fact navigable at the time of the patent was issued (it was) and then set out to decide if the canoeists might be entitled to "trespass" on the owner's land to "portage" around the dam and continue with their "sail". (No!). So Common Law is a very important heritage. Zoning Bylaws, like the "Farm Products Production Protection Act attempt to inform new owners of existing rights in law in order to curb costly common law "nuisance suits", etc. Yes, Ontario legislated a "Trespass to Property Act" to re-enforce understandings esp. with respect to all terrain motorized vehicles...just don't post a "No Hunting" sign under the "limited Prohibitions" Section!! In my view, protecting private land esp. with respect to the Ontario Endangered Species Act and private land use (habitat?) trespass is of paramount importance to landowners in terms of persons who might seek to enhance their status as a finder of a "species in need" (existing or in need of "listing"), or looking for evidence of landowner "infractions", real or imagined. Sad it is. And it's mostly if not all about money, mostly someone else's, not wildlife! Remember too their is a great difference these days between "woodlands" and "forests". The first is for woo, the other is for public uses. Here the Planners want to designate all hedgerows on land in PPS "prime agricultural areas" as PPS "significant woodlands" to provide wildlife corridors on private land. Then come the "in situ" releases, and/or the wireless cameras to record "species" "crossing the road". "Back Off Govt" in deed. That's my opinion! Bob Woolham North Augusta Ontario. Leeds & Grenville
I couldn't agree more Bob. Your knowledge on aspects of farm rights has the respect of many.
By definition, a "patent" has 'exclusive rights'. You are absolutely correct about the time lines of the patent issuance. A land grant issued in 1793 (before municipal corporations were formed) would have different provisos and limitations than a post-confederation grant . Please remember that a land grant is in reality a "license". A license is merely permission granted by an authority to exercise a certain privilege that, without such authorization, would constitute an illegal act.
When the land grants were issued, it was witnessed twice and then Sealed. The grantee had to lay a hand on the bible to swear an oath to "God", swear allegiance to the Crown, pay the fee..... only after the conditions were met such as build a home no smaller that 16' x 20', clear X amounts of acres, clear the frontage of the lot 33' and the length of the lot, maintain the road a minimum 6 statute days a year, have the ability to defend the property and the Crown when called, plant food, etc. (150 years of free road work by farmers WITHOUT compensation to date)
The land grants and property rights (such as drainage) are protected by the very first Act of Ontario under Free and Common Socage. ..... this is where your common law aspects shines.
But you mention "trespassing".
Before a "person" could entertain acquiring a land grant, permission to set foot on the property was reqired. As the lands belonged to the Crown, a potential farmer needed permission to enter the property to start and fulfill conditions under Socage.
The first step, was acquiring a "fiat" from the Crown's representative. A fiat is (in part) a "warrant" which allows a named person the right to enter property.
It is important to note that the King/Queen.. as you mention... granted the land patents. They are Sovereign. The warrants are also Sovereign. The fiat is a pre-land patent document of which grants Sovereign rights to enter named properties. I wonder if snowmobilers were included on those warrants to enter farmland?
joann vergeer
I did not believe in the power of Crown Land Patents over night and it will take a lot more than a rant from Mr. Hillier to convince me otherwise. Mr. Hillier mentions lawyers and court cases that helped him to expose all the information on the Patents as myth, but he does not mention or reference any of them. The research done on the Patents by the OLA is extensive, well layed out, logical, and above all very well referenced. This allows anyone to look up the information themselves and form their own opinion. I have looked up much of the information and think the case of property rights with the Crown Land Patents is rock solid. The real proof and the most convincing argument for the Patents though are all the precedent setting court cases that were found by the OLA. One of my favourites is the Province of Alberta legislating all oil underneath the Province as their own but being told by the courts that they can not do this where the oil was given in the Crown Land Patent, as they can not change the terms after the fact. The other is in Ontario where the courts decided that a landowner owns the bed of a potentially navigable river even though the Navigable Waters Act of 1911 says all such waters belong to the Province, again the Act does not apply to Patents given before 1911. So there you have it, the nay sayers will have to come up with actual referenced facts and precedent setting court cases, not just opinions, to convince me that the Crown Land Patents are a myth. Fred Probst
politically it is more correct to reject basic OLA philosophy than to fight the fiberals. i am deeply disappointed by this turn of events.i guess politics washes philosophy and ideals.i had not expected by hillier
dr lieven gevaert
If only Randy Hillier could of thought this way he would have seen the light. Ontaio lawyers lose all credibility as the office was started in the province (I believe in early century) and all provincial office & corporations heel to the PROMISES and WORD of King George Forth!His word guarantees the Land Ownners RIGHTS!
Those people in Canada who claim the word of King George IV is "gospel" are as loopy as those people in the US who evoke their 235 year-old Constitution as a basis for basing gun laws for the ownership of assault rifles in the same context as owning 1776 era muzzle-loading rifles and flint-lock pistols.
It's all about common sense, people - would you want your neighbour to claim King George IV allows him/her to operate a smelly rendering plant upwind from you? - Of course not.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Comment modified by editor
There has to be laws to protect people from neighbours that will send you into living in hell. As far as the States the constitution doesn,t say which kind of arms you should bare ,what about 50 years from now when they have laser guns and such .
I am sorry I did not include my name when I pushed the button. I just submitted the article about Land Patent promises and King George 4th.Thanks for allowing me to reply
Ken Hughes Huron -Perth member & registered patent holder
i would interested in your thoughts.
it would appear there are people in this province that misunderstand and therefore distorted the true value of land patents.
land patents do indeed secure Sovereign rights, duties and obligations.......
joann vergeer
Post new comment