Conservation Authority Usurpers

Conservation Authorities (CA's) are not only usurpers of private property they are criminally involved in improperly convincing our court system's justices to find for the CA's as stated in Mr. Don Johnson's letter below.
.
By usurping the rights of private property owners the Conservation Authorities have bankrupted innocent Citizens, broken apart families and stolen property! 
.

'News Alert Niagara' Has been chronicling the criminal antics of Conservation Authorities for decades starting with the advent of the hated McGuinty/Wynne Liberal government with no response from the equally criminal Trudeau Regime. 

http://newsalertniagara.blogspot.com/2012/09/pollution-alert.html

https://newsalertniagara.blogspot.com/2019/08/what-does-npca-stand-for.html

https://newsalertniagara.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-color-of-black.html

https://newsalertniagara.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-great-canadian-con-job.html

https://newsalertniagara.blogspot.com/2017/05/toxic-poison-from-randles-reef-to.html

https://newsalertniagara.blogspot.com/2016/06/niagaras-mount-carcinogen.html

Please take note of Editor's Viewpoint below Mr. Johnson's letter...

From: Don Johnson <teamjohn@idirect.com>
Sent: June 16, 2020 12:18 PM
To: Gerber, Leah <lgerber@torstar.ca>
Cc: OLA-HHLA Erika & Greg Furney <gefurney@gmail.com>
Subject: Re conservation authorities article

Hi Leah ;

Reading your article you allude to fact 90% of population live in conservation authority lands. You omit to say 10% of the population lives on rural/farm lands which compose 80% of the private owned property in Ontario. Lands which the Conservation authorities claim is in their jurisdiction. 

I want to draw your attention to the fact that conservation authorities have failed for years to obey and respect the jurisdiction mandate they have per the conservation authorities act.

That act, section 21, is clear that they do not have any authority on private owned land unless they enter into an agreement with the property owner, pay the property owner based on an agreement or that the land is expropriated.

Section 28, under which they levy so many charges, only gives them authority to do activities where they have jurisdiction. Area of Jurisdiction is not defined in the CA act but it is Clearly restricted.

Jurisdiction is clear in section 21 where private owned land Is concerned but Conservation authorities ignore this by saying section 21 does not restrain their authority stating section 28  gives them jurisdictional authority over land and water in a watershed no matter ownership.

It is this issue that results in, what I believe, is 90% of charges laid by the authorities. The conservation authorities decree large areas of private land to be frozen from use by the owners despite fact owner owns land and water on it( Conveyancing Act). Indeed if the authority has control over private property and water on it why did the Supreme Court recently confirm in “Lynch vs St Johns“ that natural heritage designation for water was an expropriation of the private property owners rights and as such the owner is entitled to compensation for the devaluation in value.

Property in Ontario is owned in 4 ways. 

Land is held and under authority of native tribes and these are self determining. Conservation authorities have no authority on these unless the bands agree in contract to give them authority or consultancy input.

Lands are owned by the crown which comprises about 91% of all land ownership in Ontario. These consist of  federal, provincial, municipal, lands. These lands fall under mandate of conservation authorities because the governments have given them that authority under the act and under by-laws and agreements of municipalities.

The last type of land ownership is private property which has 2 sub groups of ownership.

These are lands granted or sold by the crown to settlers “before confederation” and those sold “post confederation”.

Lands granted or sold, pre confederation, by the crown to private owners are lands where the crown at its prerogative gave the owners unique and exclusive authority over these lands. These lands once granted by the crown were removed from  the authority of the crown and placed under the direct authority of the property owner. As such, at time of confederation the crown had no right or authority to authorize or give/assign the federal or provincial governments any control over these lands as it no longer owned nor controlled these lands.  This is why section 109 of the constitution clearly states these trusts (grants) must be respected and are not in the Province. 

These rights and privileges run with the land and are not under the domain of the province of Ontario to interfere with. As such when any government or non government agency interferes with these land owner rights, and that owner is harmed, he is due compensation.

In southern Ontario roughly 80% of the Private owned land mass is owned with pre confederation crown grants being the root of title. Many property owners having knowingly or unknowingly ceded their authority to the control their land but a great number have not. It is our estimate that about 75% of all private owned lands In the province not within urban areas still have legally enforceable crown grants giving the owners unique authority. 

As such the battle of private land ownership rights respective to Conservation and other authorities is significant. We believe actions by conservation authorities, when it comes to their actions on private owned land, are illegal actions by conservation authorities. When it comes to conservation authorities attacks, regulations and demands which ignore section 21 of their act limiting their jurisdiction and using section 28 to affect the private property owners rights guaranteed by the constitutional then we reaffirm “ we believe the conservation authorities actions are in violation of our rights of property ownership.

The Supreme Court of Canada and the Supreme Court of the UK , prior to confederation, have numerous cases and rulings respective to property rights of the individual versus authority of the crown to usurp or remove those rights. These rights go back to even before 1215 and the Magna Carta. Never in the history of the courts has the court ruled in favour of the government against rights of a property owner holding a valid crown grant. This is because the crown is the ultimate authority and power to which all levels of government are subordinate to the power of the crown in Canada. As such permission of the crown or an agreement with the crown is the ultimate power authority and decision authority when conflict arises.

Unfortunately most Canadians do not know the law of the land and we have way too many politicians and authority figures who either do not know their authority limits or who don’t care and decide to ignore that authority limit. They count on people acquiescence versus fightIng them because the cost of resistance is too expensive for most property owners.

Of course when an authority is knowingly ignoring their authority limitations and relying on this attitude that people won’t fight due to cost or ignorance of their rights; then we believe these actions in ignoring the fights of the property owner, by those in power,  could be argued as being criminal offences per “nuisance” and even possibly “extortion” as defined in the Criminal code of Canada.

It is this conundrum the Ontario Government must resolve and the Conservation  Authorities have brought this problem onto themselves.

If this is not resolved in accordance to the law of property ownership, as defined by the Supreme Court in numerous previous cases, then the new Conservation Authorities legislation will likely be challenged to the Supreme Court of Canada  for a clear and concise ruling of Constitutional guaranteed rights. We are quite certain based on over 100 other supreme courts rulings that the Court will reconfirm that the authority of the Conservation Authorities is only on Crown lands and lands where owners give consent.

With respect to private property owned “fee simple subject to reservations in the crown grant” unless the authority negotiates with the owner or utilizes expropriation ( which authority it may actually not have - another legal argument) then unless the property owners actions cause damage to neighbour properties the Conservation Authority have no authority to interfere or demand permits.

Don Johnson
President Hamilton Halton Landowner Association
905 577-7859


Dear Readers,
We finally have an Ontario Government that recognizes the fact that the unaccountable Conservation Authorities have been allowed to overstep their mandate under the auspices of the hated McGuinty/Wynne Liberal Regime.  
.
However, is it enough for any government to allow the past sins of Conservation Authorities to proceed as if they had nothing to answer for.
.
The Squalid conduct of the Conservation Authorities in conjunction with their respective municipalities not only made a mockery of our judicial system but they seriously hurt innocent Ontario Citizens and they did so purposely and maliciously to further their own financial ends.
.

At the very least the victims of the Conservation Authorities crime spree deserve an explanation as to why nothing is being done on their behalf. So far they have not received even an apology!
In the face of recorded evidence, court room transcripts and first hand testimony it has to be asked, what kind of government would allow its innocent citizens to suffer without reparation? 

.
As they say in the television commercials; BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE! In this case  municipal governments in concert with the Conservation Authorities demand that the Citizens pay property tax on the very same property that they have commandeered (Stolen)! 

Gun Banners Cannot be Trusted

Hard evidence and tragic experience proves that the banning of guns not only doesn't serve the intended purpose, but has exasperated the problem at best and in too many cases lead to immeasurable misery and devastation!

Canada must never allow itself to become another victim of a government of dubious distinction, a government which has already exhibited lawless tendencies. 
.
Why would any society follow the path of failure like the gun ban failure in the countries of England and Australia or the Cities of Chicago and Baltimore  as opposed to following in the footsteps of successful societies such as the Country of Switzerland, the State of Maine or the City of Kennesaw, Georgia.
.
.

One Of Georgia’s Safest Cities REQUIRES Its Citizens To Own A Gun, But CNN Doesn’t Know Why Crime Is So Low

• The Kennesaw, Georgia, law states that “every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm,” according to CNN, and was reportedly passed as a deterrent to crime.“It was meant to be kind of a crime deterrent,” Kennesaw Police Lt. Craig Graydon, a 30-year law enforcement veteran, told CNN. “It was also more or less a political statement because the city of Morton Grove, Illinois, passed a city ordinance banning handguns from their city limits.”

As for would-be criminals looking for an easy mark, judging by the crime statistics it seems most have bypassed the Georgia town and moved on to easier targets. Even CNN was forced to admit that Kennesaw, populated by 33,000 people, has only had “one murder in the last six years and a violent crime rate of below 2%.”

“But,” writes CNN, “it’s unclear whether that has anything to do with the gun law.”

.

Kennesaw’s mayor sees it differently.

“If you’re going to commit a crime in Kennesaw and you’re the criminal — are you going to take a chance that that homeowner is a law-abiding citizen?” asked Mayor Derek Easterling.

.

“It gives me the ability to protect myself as opposed to being somewhere where you weren’t allowed to have a firearm or it was frowned upon,” said Wayne Arnold, a local resident who is a fan of the law.

.

With the gun issue being in the spotlight of late, town officials have been getting plenty of attention from all over the world about their law.

.

“We get a lot of calls, conversation, and it seems to keep crime control, gun safety, things like that on the minds of many of the residents, because people are constantly talking about the gun law,” Lt. Graydon told CNN. “So that’s been somewhat of a benefit to us.”

.

Arnold noted the expectation of a “Wild West” environment with everyone walking around “with a firearm strapped to their side.”

“And it’s not like that,” said Arnold. “It’s strictly a home defense system type of deal. There’s no shootouts down the street.”

So we can safely do to you whatever we want !

Tyrannical Dictators fear an armed Citizenry 

PS: Click HERE to see why  the Trudeau Liberalistas want Canadians Defenseless

The title 'Conservation Authority' is a Tragic Misnomer

We tag the title 'Conservation Authority' as a misnomer predicated on the fact that they have overstepped their mandate, Abused innocent Citizens, work against the well-being of society and above all, fail in the husbanding of our precious natural resources. These so-called conservation authorities run roughshod over the farms that produce our food supply but when we need protection for our resources they fail miserably!

http://newsalertniagara.blogspot.com/2016/06/niagaras-mount-carcinogen.html

.
Their general forte` is supporting development whenever and wherever there is money involved. It's easy to to understand the trajectory of the conservation authorities and their political masters by simply following the money!
.

Most ludicrous of all is to have cavalier miscreants espousing Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a form of protections from government tyranny such as the very expensive tyranny inherit with conservation authorities.
.
Even more ludicrous is the necessity to remind our feckless government that there are no rights and freedoms in our supposed 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms' as long as the Citizen must personally sue in the governments court to avail these protections. 
.
Our government agencies even use the so-called justice circus to override legal contracts such as Crown Patents and municipal legal documents.

News Alert Niagara is working diligently to inform the electorate that the conduct of conservation authorities have been running amuck under the eye and approval of our elected government and assisted by the government court system.
.

https://newsalertniagara.blogspot.com/2016/12/cheats-and-liars.html

.
NOTE:
We have removed the identity from the submitted stories below sent to us from Ontario farm families for their protection. It is enough that the stories are disseminated. The dissemination of the story is what is important.

Dear Editor News Alert Niagara
The Following is our story:

We ran into the Conservation regulations when north Grey imposed EP on our farm in their zoning regulations at the behest of Conservation. Their map shows our 98.5 acre farm as a postage sized blip with zoning running in fat lines over this space, going over top of our driveway in 2 places, running through the south field where we have a small orchard, covering parts of our yard and over buildings, the back of the Quonset hut and across hay fields and bush.  And then there are the setbacks.   I asked Conservation to clarify what areas were involved because trying to superimpose a tiny scrap of paper on the amount of acreage was not telling me much.  In their written response they told me when they would come out to investigate, they would probably find that there was more EP they could designate.  Needless to say, we did not roll out the welcome mat.  The regulations for wetland zoning prohibit you from cutting grass, trees, walking on it etc.  I appealed with the planner and was told I would have to pay for hydrological studies, pay fees for a tribunal appeal etc. I was told I could drive on the driveway but could not walk out the back door of the Quonset!!! So now we are to stop cutting grass, removing dead trees.  This is creating a major fire hazard.  My father had recently lost the family cottage, boathouse, boat and tractor but the fire had not spread to the neighbours cottages or the forest because I insisted on keeping the grass clipped and all dead trees and branches were removed annually.  

Fruit trees are hardwood.  They do NOT grow in wetlands and ours are thriving. A wetland has to meet certain criteria.  Our farmland does not meet those criteria.   I am a senior with medical issues which are affecting my mobility.  I cannot fight through 3-foot-high grass and weeds, climb over fallen branches in my front yard.  I do not feel I should have to pay for a permit to Conservation to see if they will give me permission to change the stairs to the house to a ramp. 

 A conservation regulation is not a law.  The province can’t enforce it so they passed it on to local municipalities to be included in their zoning bylaws.  Our farm is privately owned land.  We hold the Patent which was a legally binding contract between the Monarch who issued it and the grantee, his heirs and successors, forever.  Once this contract came into effect, even the Monarch could not repeal it.  The MNR still issues patents today.  CN trains run on land patented to them.  Conservation Authorities should only have any say over Crown land.

More to come...

No Silent politician is worth your vote!

>> Madam and Sir:

>>

>> https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/ontario-proposes-extending-endangered-species-act-exemption-for-forestry-sector-1.4961438

>>

>> This CTV report says that the Ontario government seeks comment about exempting forests from the Endangered Species Act; I hope that my observations and suggestion - revoke the ESA - will be accepted.

>>

>> Caribou have great difficulty living and moving through dense forest because they eat lichen that does not grow in shade and because their antlers dislike tree branches.  Caribou live well in the High Arctic in summer because there is open space and lots of lichen; they don't need forests.  The headline photo of happily grazing caribou did not include trees.  So the bias in using that photo is apparent.

>>

>> The Endangered Species Act was passed by Premier McGuinty in 2007 and took effect in June 2008.  I had planted 600 Butternut seedlings on my managed forest farm.  Because I did not want to go to jail for 600 years and pay several hundred million dollars in fines for "possessing" an endangered species, I cut them down in the Spring of 2008.  I did so surreptitiously because the county tree-cutting bylaw (approved by Premier McGuinty's Municipal Act) forbade me to harvest my trees without permission and the county authority refused to grant permission.  I had to decide which law to violate, and chose the lower-tier regulation.

>>

>> Two years later, the McGuinty government quietly passed an ESA regulation that allowed those who planted a Butternut tree to use it as they saw fit.  I had destroyed 600 ten-foot "endangered" trees because of the Endangered Species Act.  I suspect that many other endangered species were destroyed or chased away to protect property owners

>>

>> The Endangered Species Act endangers the species it wishes to protect.

>>

>> The Bobolink is "protected" by an ESA regulation that forbids any hay cutting until mid July.  Delaying hay harvest by a month means the hay loses most of its nutrient value, which leads to more hay cutting to feed livestock.  But Bobolinks did not nest in Ontario hay fields at all until forests were cut down to create hay fields; they were very rare in Ontario.  If the ESA is enforced, they will again become very rare.

>>

>> The Badger is "endangered," and in consequence farmland for a diameter of one mile around a groundhog hole possibly occupied by a Badger is denied any use.  Determinations are made by an ESA "agent," appointed by Queen's Park, who may not be able to distinguish between a badger and a groundhog.

>>

>> The Barn swallow, very very rare in Ontario until wooden barns were built because its thin feathers cannot withstand Ontario cold, is endangered, and therefore "protects" decrepit wooden barns from being replaced by modern barns kinder to livestock.

>>

>> Black bears, Cougars, Wolverines and Grey foxes are "endangered" in Ontario.  They are endangered because they can kill livestock and small children, and are therefore often killed or chased away.  They should not be listed as "endangered" in southern Ontario.  A fox often visits my farm, but I can't chase it away, and I won't kill it because it eats mice and voles.

>>

>> The ESA lists over 200 species - mosses (Spoon-leaved Moss); vascular plants (Blunt-nosed Woodsia); insects (Frosted Elfin); amphibians (Northern Dusky Salamander); reptiles (Blue Racer); birds (Loggerhead shrike); mammals (Beluga); fishes (Paddlefish); lichens (Flooded jellyskin); molluscs (Rainbow mussel); etc.  Most farmers and city folk would be hard pressed to identify most of the listed species.  The Beluga (whale) is never found n Ontario, only in Hudson's Bay.  The Loggerhead shrike grabs other birds in flight and impales them on thorn bushes until it grows hungry - not a vary attractive Ontarian.

>>

>> Very few listed species dwell in towns and cities; so the ESA threatens only farmers who are unable to cope with "possessed" wildlife that may traverse rural areas or bide there.  Therefore, when listed species are found, they are endangered by the landowner.  A man in Erin was charged by the town for harbouring ("possessing") a wild swan that visited his back yard pond.

>>

>> Forests and woodlots in southern Ontario are 87% privately owned.  North of the French River they are 95% Crown owned.  Private landowners protect their trees sustainably because they provide clean air, retain soil moisture, reduce snow drifts and wind damage to topsoil, offer material for fences and other structures, and are a source of dead branches for firewood.  No farmer endangers his woodlot.  Forests are sustained by farmers and (in the north) by the Ontario government; they are not, contrary to the environmental groups seeking donations and government handouts, threatened by the owners.  They are instead constantly improved.

>>

>> Contrary to Greenpeace Canada, protecting landowners from the ESA has nothing to do with COVID-19 or rebuilding the economy.  Objection to the ESA has been raised since it was passed in 2007.

>>

>> Ecojustice is much confused about caribou habitat.  Caribou summer quite happily on the Arctic islands where mature trees are three inches long and lie flat on the ground.  Many thousands of caribou were drowned in a Quebec river during their trek north when a Hydroelectric project released raging water, but I heard no complaints from environmentalists.

>>

>> The Green Party is also confused.  Farmers and foresters do not destroy trees; developers destroy trees.  A swath of perhaps a thousand acres was swept clear of trees just south of the Credit Valley Conservation Authority Headquarters building to construct residential homes.  A clutch of genuinely endangered American chestnut seedlings was destroyed in Grand Valley in order to erect a temporary real estate sign.  Several American chestnut trees were cut down along the Lake Ontario shore east of Toronto in 2007 by a home builder, to evade the ESA.  Several thousand Dufferin County acres were bought to "grow potatoes;" then the owner applied for a gravel pit.  The exemptions to Ontario tree-cutting bylaws include Hydro lines, municipal works, road maintenance, city dwellers and home developments - but not farmers.

>>

>> City-bred bureaucrats may be misleading elected officials; "green" lobbyists certainly are.  My hope is that our responsible politicians will listen instead to rural landowners and apply common sense to legislation passed by the previous government.  I recommend revocation of the ESA