Monday, 16 September 2019

Never in our Wildest Dreams


In 2012 when we started our 'News Alert Niagara' Blog in an effort to develop more timely information articles to our online magazine 'The Mirror online'.
.
'News Alert Niagara' became so successful that the 'The Mirror online' was discontinued after 10 years of publications. (2006/2017) This milestone is the best for 'News Alert Niagara' since our acceptance into the Online News Association <newsletter@journalists.org>
.
'News Alert Niagara' primarily tracks corruption in its many forms and many sources. The beauty of a blog is the ability to Link into the whirlpool of corruption without the need to rewrite an explanation.
.
'News Alert Niagara' alerts its readers when any threat of harm is suspected or perceived and we do this without fear or favor.
.
'News Alert Niagara' always provides the opportunity for anyone and everyone to voice their opinion and/or rebuttal under each and every article (without the need for membership or code) and we are willing and able the be persuaded to make changes in the face of fact.
.
To Contact 'News Alert Niagara' with your story...
 Preston Haskell, Editor 
  phaskell38@gmail.com







Friday, 13 September 2019

Open Letter to Private Property Owners


‘News Alert Niagara’ is sounding the alarm about the theft and abuse of Canadian Private Property Owners at the hands of all levels of tyrannical government and their unaccountable agencies.
.
The theft and abuse of private property owners is predicated on the Canadian Authority's inability to adequately husband our resources.
.
Canada’s astonishing national debt has been building because of wasteful spending and the overloading of government. In other words, too few citizens to pull a too heavy load of bureaucrats!
 While our Government has turned on us to cover their corruption and inabilities, we as Citizens must take responsibility for the situation we are now facing.
.
We have failed to hold our authorities accountable for their actions.
.
We have not made ourselves available and willing to participate in the decision-making process such as board of directors of government agencies.
.
Example: Of the 3 dozen (Illegitimate) Conservation Authorities (CA) there is not a single landowner member on their board of directors.
.
We cannot sit back and complain about decisions made regarding private property if there is no representation; if we are too feckless to do our duty.


The first question for our elected officials is; Why is there NO representation from Private Landowners on Conservation Boards when it is the Private Landowners that are most directly affected by CA Decisions and it is the Private Landowners that are a significant source of expertise in land management.
.
There appears to be only two ways to defend against runaway tyranny and the two ways are #1. Get involved politically and #2. Litigation in the higher courts.
.
#1. We have witnessed the positive results of political action by UN-electing failing politicians.
.
#2. Litigation in higher courts because our Provincial Offences Courts have been hijacked by justices who consider themselves as ‘Legal guardians of the realm’ handing down rulings based on laws that justify theft and abuse but devoid of justice.
.
Private Landowners must unite and support an association such as the Ontario Landowners Association (OLA) or face the onslaught of those who mistakenly think that your Land is their private playpen
.
The OLA holds centrally located informative conventions with brilliant and informative guest speakers while disseminating all pertinent information far and wide. 
.
There is an opportunity to fight back in the higher courts and that is to help fund a court challenge on behalf of all Private Landowners.
. 

Constitutional Challenge on Private Property Rights


Hang Together or Hang Alone


Don't forget to tap the Blue Links to complete the story
.
As always your views can be proffered in the COMMENT SECTION below




Tuesday, 10 September 2019

Stop Your Abuse

A response from Jeff Bogaerts that must be shared:
Jeff Bogaerts In 1932 at Queens Park, the Legislature began debates to create the Conservation Authority Act..
The flooding of the Grand River was the catalyst.
The first act was passed in 1946. Since then, lobbying by groups such as Conservation Ontario, have expanded the function of CA's far beyond the Legislator's Intent of protecting people and property from flooding.
.
CA's do not need to own and manage golf courses, ski hills, parks, museums etc. They have nothing to do with flooding.
Provincial Parks and Federal Parks (Rideau Canal) do a fine job. There are Provincial, Federal and Municipal departments that can look after historical sites such as Mill of Kintail. The Mill of Kintail is not the responsibility of Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority or any other CA. The Mill of Kintail Must be Preserved and open to the Public. It must not be the responsibility of MVCA.
Every dollar and hour spent on the Mill is a dollar and hour taken away from protecting people and property from flooding. Spend the time and money exactly where the Legislator's Intent was debated and decided.
The CA's today are Private Clubs. They are trying to duplicate Provincial Parks and are expanding into the Private Sector. Tax from the Public Purse is not to be used to be in competition with Private Golf Courses or Private Ski Hills.
Protect People and Property from Flooding … allow People to Protect Their Private Property from Flooding … once the flood waters are gone … mark the height of the water and build Coastal Engineered Permanent Erosion Control Barriers … not take down the sandbags and wait for the next flood to occur then build the sandbag walls again … Conservation Authorities … Do Your Job … Clean out the rivers, Lakes, Streams, Municipal Drains … build flood control dams (with micro hydro turbines if possible) … Stop Your Abuse ...
.
https://newsalertniagara.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-color-of-black.html
https://newsalertniagara.blogspot.com/2018/11/a-study-in-elected-corruption-update-8.html
https://newsalertniagara.blogspot.com/2016/06/niagaras-mount-carcinogen.html
https://newsalertniagara.blogspot.com/2017/05/toxic-poison-from-randles-reef-to.html
https://newsalertniagara.blogspot.com/2018/12/how-does-any-self-respecting-government.html

Special Thanks to Jeff Bogaerts, President of the Ontario Landowners Association.



Don't forget to tap the Blue Links to complete the story
.
As always your views can be proffered in the COMMENT SECTION below



Please consider supporting the Constitutional Challenge on Private Property Rights


Tuesday, 3 September 2019

Good News - Bad news

From the depths of environmental despair we finally get a hint that help is on its way and it comes in the form of an Ontario Environment Minister actually paying attention to what the Conservation Authorities (CA) have been up to.
.
For those not knowing what CAs have been doing to innocent Citizens here is a LINK to follow: 
https://newsalertniagara.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-great-canadian-con-job.html
olkj  j-nmnmjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj j.
Some folk are erroneously lamenting the loss of conservation authorities power to protect our environment but nothing could be further from reality.



Under the McGuinty/Wynne Liberal Government our supposed environment protectors were allowed to run roughshod over innocent Citizens while allowing developers to rape our environment at will; practicing silence in the face of municipal pollution of our waterways and even denying a voice from the very Citizens that their decisions affect most; (private landowners). 
.
"After decades of Conservation Authority's empire building and coning society of their great value at protecting our environment, we have spent $billions only to arrive at a situation of devastated families, polluted beaches, polluted great lakes, polluted rivers, polluted groundwater and leaching carcinogenic toxins!" - Preston Haskell 
.
They deny the inclusion of even a single Private Landowner member of the Land Owner Association on the excuse that there is no rule that says a landowner must be included. 
.
Surely, that means there is no rule that says that a landowner member of the Landowner Association should be excluded!
.
By denying Landowner participation there is no representation for the landowner point of view and no voice to sound the alarm as when things inevitably go wrong!
.
It is exactly the lack of inclusive representation and oversight that has been the genesis of the wicked criminal persecution of so many innocent Citizens.
.
Who is responsible for Ontario Landowners being under the thumb of unaccountable, empire building and criminal agencies with no ability for Citizens who are expressly involved their RIGHT to representation?

.
'News Alert Niagara' lauds the new NPCA Administration for producing a short Biography of their board members as we requested.
.
However, a cursory examination of the NPCA Board reveals that there is not one member representing the Private Landowner or their Association to represent the very land the NPCA claims to holds sway over!

Please note, the arrogant reaction of the Ontario Conservation Authority when the Ontario environment Minister simply asks the CA to stick to their core function:
.
It should come as no surprise to the CAs that the Ontario Landowners Association has come out in support of the Minister of Environment, Conservation and Parks, Jeff Yurek, MPP
https://ontariolandowners.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/OLA-Press-Release-August-27-2019.pdf
.
'News Alert Niagara' is asking the Ontario Government to ensure that all agencies that make decisions affecting Private Landowners have at least one Landowner member on each oversight 'Board of Directors' from the Citizens of interest.



Don't forget to tap the Blue Links to complete the story
.
As always your views can be proffered in the COMMENT SECTION below



Please consider supporting the Constitutional Challenge on Private Property Rights





Friday, 23 August 2019

The Great Political Con Job

Only in Canada Eh!
Of course not, Silly, but it's Canada that we live in and it's our Canadian environment that we are discussing.
.
Here in 'The Land of Bureaucratic Lunacy' our crafty legislators concocted a wicked scheme to offload their responsibility for our environment to an unaccountable arms length agency for the sole purpose of shielding themselves from public scrutiny. 
.
.Bureaucratic offloading of responsibility has created an overabundance of resource-consuming agencies requiring 25% of our workforce, which is causing the despicable desperation for cash and is the primary driver of poverty and homelessness. No amount of 'Machiavellian Scheming' can overcome the imbalance of too much overhead!   
.
The long overdue letter from the environment minister (below) clearly points to the fact that our bragging conservation authorities have been operating outside of their mandate in their zealous criminal persecutions of innocent Canadian Citizens. 
.
.Let's hope that the Ministry has put a stop to the CA's plan to increase their maximum fines on average hard-working Citizens from $10K to a Citizen destroying $50K and their attempt to double CA control over private property from 120 meters to 250 meters from any little stream, which is creating a parallel and more powerful municipal government with none of the municipal government responsibilities. 
.
For those still drinking the CA kool-Aid please follow the Links below to get an inkling of how the CA's have savaged innocent Citizens while remaining silent when it matters. 
.

.
Following decades of 'Bovine Waste' the electorate sent a very convincing message to the powers that be, that they simply 'had enough' by turfing any and all politicians that they believed did not represent their needs or the best interest of their environment
https://www.facebook.com/OntarioProud/videos/1926785867599514/?v=1926785867599514


"After decades of Conservation Authority's empire building and coning society of their great value at protecting our environment, we have spent $billions only to arrive at a situation of devastated families, polluted beaches, polluted great lakes, polluted rivers, polluted groundwater and leaching carcinogenic toxins!" - Preston Haskell





The tragedy lies in the fact that with all the totally ignored large scale destruction our environment our Conservation Authorities criminally persecute individual innocent Citizens by cunningly convincing our courts to destroy them!

1.
Here is a story of a couple who did everything right to start their little business in Welland, Ontario only to be destroyed by the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority. (NPCA)
On top of going back to college, getting all required permits and even paying $thousands for an environment assessment the NPCA crushed them after their first few sales and on what basis? 
On the basis of connected underground aquifers, a non-existent Black Gum Tree and a dead turtle skeleton in the roadside ditch. 
The Laws permitting this lunacy run closely akin to the old witch-craft trials.

2.
Then there is the story of a couple who made the big mistake of purchasing a so-called ‘Provincially Significant Wetland’ predicated on their love of all things in nature.
Mistake, because taking on the obligation as official PSW managers, they have suffered harassment, extortion and even malicious prosecution, which the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority has been known for in the past. 
The Niagara Regional Government not only condones this specious conduct, but they even participate by lending regional staff time and facilities including their legal department.

3.
This crime story began when Conservation authority drained ‘CONSERVATION Land’ onto the White Family farm. Mr. White senior died under the strain of illicit litigation leaving Son Dave and his Mother to carry on defending their innocence against NPCA employee perjurers, who were themselves terminated for not lying good enough!  
Dave complained because the CA was flooding his land. So the Conservation Authority simply changed the designation of Dave’s land to wetland and charged him and his mother with farming a wetland. After four years in court, their entire life savings was sucked out of them. 
The Region’s lawyer, representing the Conservation Authority asked the judge to have Dave White and his 82-year-old mother thrown into prison for 2 years and he also requested a $50,000 fine plus costs and all this in the NPCA’s failed attempt to pad their bank account. 
However, Dave had proven that the Conservation Authority had changed the mapping and the water course flow in the creeks — amongst other things — to suit their own case. 
In the end, the judge saw through the malicious scheme and chastised Niagara Region's Lawyer for using the court system as a weapon against common people. 

4.
Another failed and costly attempt involved the NPCA in a decades long vendetta against an innocent City of St. Catharines, Ontario resident.
A cabal of so called environment protectors unleashed a tyrannical assault, not only against an innocent citizen, but also against the environment that they are supposed to protect!

5.
Perhaps no other story epitomizes the tyrannical predilection of the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority as that of Mr. Len Greenaway’s story recently written in Niagara this week Newspaper.
The NPCA cannot claim any description other than tyrannical when it accepts donated property and then cuts off common and traditional emergency water supply simply because it has acquired that power!
The NPCA has be getting away with tyranny based on framing their tyranny as conservation!

6.
Other NPCA tyrannical activities include their attempt to destroy the last remaining 'Wetland Forest' in Niagara Falls, Ontario in favor of Rich Chinese Developers!

7.
NPCA Tyrants take custody of popular hiking forest and immediately sell off healthy old growth trees leaving the tree tops cluttering the hiking trails!


8.
NPCA Tyrants allow millions of tons of Carcinogen toxic waste to be piled hundreds of feet high with-in the urban boundaries of Welland , Ontario for a gift of $5million!

9.
NPCA Tyrants expands authority over private property and people’s homes!

10.
The same NPCA tyrants that lord their authority over private citizens and their private property are the same Tyrants that build commercial banquette halls on our much vaunted UNESCO World Biosphere conservation park paid for by the company that created Mount carcinogen! 

11.
After losing their years-long persecution against an innocent St. Catharines city resident, the NPCA and City convinced a court that by finishing his legal Solar array project he further violated the law under the spurious argument that he created a new development. This corrupted equity theft cost the Citizen additional $thousands! https://newsalertniagara.blogspot.com/2018/07/an-extraordinarily-disgusting-story.html

12.
Consider Jean and Peter Thomas' story because I believe you will find it interesting to learn that building a sand ring on your property to exercise horses; will land you in court, fighting for your property rights resulting in huge legal fees, a $600,000 lien on your home and tens of thousands in fines and all because they did NO damage to the environment. https://newsalertniagara.blogspot.com/2018/12/how-does-any-self-respecting-government.html

Please Note: Some of the cases are current to the point that they are still ongoing... Transcripts are Available to the AG

Don't forget to tap the Blue Links to complete the story
.
As always your views can be proffered in the COMMENT SECTION below


Please consider supporting the Constitutional Challenge on Private Property Rights





Thursday, 22 August 2019

What does the NPCA stand for?

According to the NPCA the acronym stands for Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority.
.
'News Alert Niagara' believes the acronym does stand for The Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority but with emphasis on Peninsula Conservation!
.
The acronym NPCA does NOT stand for Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority with exceptions!
.
For instance: the NPCA should not boldly claim to be the guardians of water resources with the exception of risk to our groundwater by Corporations; $Billionairs;  Developers; Political influence or those making generous $contributions to the NPCA!
.
The NPCA does not have the right to brag about their concern and effort to protect our water while making excuses for not making a lot of noise when it comes to any and all risks to our water.
.

Kim Gavine, General Manager, Conservation Ontario says he was taken by surprise that the Ontario Government has starting to become aware of the specious and even criminal activities being perpetrated against innocent Citizens.
.
After decades of empire building and coning society of their great value at protecting our environment, we have spent $billions only to arrive at devastated families, polluted beaches, polluted great lakes, polluted rivers, polluted groundwater and leaching carcinogenic toxins; why, it's almost impossible to imagine how we ever got along without them!
.
With $Hundreds of Millions at stake, Citizens expect our government to better husband our resources both environmental as well as financial. 
.
The Citizen deserves more than excuses, doubletalk, and abuse from our supposed conservation authorities.
.
.Don't forget to tap the Blue Links to complete the story
.





Please consider supporting the Constitutional Challenge on Private Property Rights

Wednesday, 21 August 2019

Ontario Superior Court decision


The following Ontario Superior Court decision drives home the fact that our 'Small Claims Court' has been stolen from the Citizens of Ontario.
.
.Once we had a 'Small Claims Court System' that allowed Ontario Citizens the ability to sort out their differences without the undue burdens of legal incumbrances of expensive lawyers, Paralegals and clever legal wizardry. 
.
Following in the footsteps of former failed societies our 'would-be tyrants' design rules and regulations primarily to suit themselves; seldom for the Citizen!
The most ridiculous example is having a Prime Minister of Canada that can Lie, Cheat and break Ethical Rules at will, while his elitist ilk criminally destroys Canadian Citizens!
.
Disclosure obligations are not just evidentiary
 A recent Ontario Superior Court decision shows that If a lawyer fails to disclose, the client faces the consequences, says Daniel Waldman
Disclosure obligations are not just evidentiary
By Daniel Waldman
OPINION 12 Aug 2019



 There is no such thing as trial by ambush. There are no hidden, smoking guns or last-minute reveals. Both sides must show their whole hand and disclose all relevant evidence, whether it is helpful or harmful to their cases.

A recent Superior Court decision has confirmed that our disclosure obligations are not just evidentiary. In Blake v. Blake, 2019 ONSC 4062 Justice Peter Daley held that lawyers are obligated to make the court aware of all legally relevant authorities, even if it undermines their client’s case. This rule holds true regardless of whether opposing counsel cites the authority or not. If a lawyer fails to meet this obligation, their client may face the consequences.
Blake was an estates matter, wherein an estate trustee brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss an application brought by his siblings. The motion was heard by Daley in September of 2018 and was reserved until March, 2019, when it was dismissed.
In his reasons, Daley cited the decision of Wall v. Shaw and he noted that it was “both unfortunate and troubling” that neither counsel brought this decision to his attention, as it completely sunk the moving party’s motion. Wall was decided by the Ontario Superior Court in March of 2018, six months before Blake was heard and it was upheld by the Court of Appeal in November of that year, while Blake was under reserve.
In his costs endorsement, Daley cited “serious concerns” with the moving party’s lawyer, both in terms of his duties as an officer of the court and his candour with opposing counsel. The concern stemmed from the fact that Wall was not brought to the court’s attention during oral submissions or while the decision was under reserve.
Daley stated that after the motion was argued he easily discovered Wall on his own while reviewing the applicable law. During his review, he also came across a blog post on Wall dated November 16, 2018. The post was written by a lawyer at the same firm as the lawyer for the moving party. Given that the firm is a small, specialized estates-litigation practice, Daley had “easily drawn the factual inference” that Wall was known by the lawyer when the post was published. He also came to the “very troubling conclusion” that the lawyer intentionally did not bring Wall to his attention.
Daley held that the lawyer’s actions amounted to a breach of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Specifically, counsel has a positive duty to fully disclose all binding authorities that are relevant to a case, even if they are adverse and are not cited by opposing counsel. In such situations, lawyers must raise relevant cases and distinguish them. By failing to bring Wall to Daley’s attention, the lawyer was deemed to have breached his duty to the court.
As a consequence, substantial indemnity costs were awarded against his client. Interestingly, Daley made this order even though opposing counsel did not allege lawyer misconduct in his costs submissions.
Blake was thorough and well-reasoned, but it still raises questions about a lawyer’s disclosure obligations.
First, how can it be proven that a lawyer knew about a case and intentionally hid it from the court? In Blake, Daley’s inference was fair; the lawyer was a name partner at a small, specialized firm and the blog post was written by another name partner at the same firm. It was therefore reasonable to infer that he knew about the decision.
But what would happen in other circumstances? In Daley’s reasons, he stated that if a lawyer practices in a specialized area and the case is easy to find, the court may deem that the lawyer ought to have known about the decision and will therefore be under a duty to raise it. This finding creates some concern. Despite our best efforts, we all miss a case sometimes. After all, in Blake, opposing counsel has been practising for over 35 years and is experienced in estate litigation and he didn’t cite Wall either.
The next question is about how deep a lawyer’s obligation runs when it comes to disclosing adverse law. Again, Daley’s reasoning was fair in this regard; Wall completely tanked the motion, so perhaps the lawyer should have raised it in order to distinguish it.
But what if Wall carried less weight? Would the obligation be the same? Daley stated that cases that are “not binding but are persuasive need not necessarily be provided to the court, however counsel should nonetheless raise a case if it is on point and from the same jurisdiction.”
This reasoning makes sense, but it is difficult to delineate the meaning of a case being “on point” in different circumstances. What if the case is important but is not necessarily a deal-breaker? Would a lawyer be safe keeping the case out of his or her factum, or should they err on the side of caution and cite the case, even though it would hurt their client’s position? Those judgment calls are not always easy to make.
Lastly, perhaps the most concerning aspect of Blake was that Daley held that the lawyer should have brought Wall to his attention while his decision was reserved. Does this mean that we have to keep a close eye on the law while we are waiting for a decision to come out and send adverse cases to the judge? Waiting for a reserved decision is difficult enough, but adding that extra obligation may cause us to lose even more sleep.
Blake is currently being appealed. It will be interesting to see whether the Court of Appeal addresses the questions raised by Daley’s decision. If Daley’s reasoning is upheld, it may create difficult situations for us in balancing our duties to our clients and the court. If a case hurts our clients’ argument and we opt not to disclose it, we may be doing a good service to our clients. However, if we are deemed to have misled the court by failing to raise the decision, our clients may pay the price, both figuratively and literally.

Don't forget to support the Constitutional Challenge on Private Property Rights