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)!