tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6272158162892574723.post8704519350650835598..comments2024-01-11T20:01:01.298-05:00Comments on News Alert Niagara: Canadian Government Steals RightsNiagara Winners Circlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01452819402964169663noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6272158162892574723.post-491039498031811282018-03-17T10:50:08.800-04:002018-03-17T10:50:08.800-04:00This case law explains our Crown Patent rights:
T...This case law explains our Crown Patent rights:<br /><br />The Queen v. Robertson, 6 SCR 52, 1882 CanLII 25 (SCC), , retrieved on 2016-03-26<br /><br />Cockburn, C. J., says:— The use of water for the purpose of fishing is, when the fishery is united with the ownership of the soil, a right incidental and accessory to the latter. On a grant of the land, the water and the incidental and accessory right of fishing would necessarily pass with it. [Page 121]<br /><br />I am at a loss to understand how the Dominion, which never owned the land, and therefore never had any right to the fishing as incidental to such ownership, without any grant, statutory or otherwise, without a word in the statute indicating the slightest intention to vest the rights of property or of fishing in the Dominion, without a word qualifying or limiting the right of property of the provinces in the public lands, can now successfully claim to have a beneficial interest in those fisheries, and authority to deal with such rights of fishing as the property of the Dominion, and claim to rent or license the same at large yearly rents and appropriate the proceeds to Dominion purposes, I had formerly occasion to point out that the public works and property of each province which it was intended should be the property of Canada were enumerated in the 3rd schedule, and that neither by express words nor by the most forced construction, could the slightest inference be drawn that the public lands of the provinces, or their incidents, were intended to be vested in the Dominion, and that the express words of section 117 as clearly and unequivocally established that the provinces were to retain all their respective public property not otherwise disposed of by the act, and that, as if to place the question beyond a per-adventure, section 109 provided that all lands, mines, &c., belonging to the several provinces of &c., and all sums then due and payable for such lands, mines, &c., should belong to the several provinces in which the same are situate or arise, subject to any trusts existing in respect thereof and to any interest other than that of the province in the same.<br /><br />Tried to explain my rights given to me in my Crown Patent to City of Welland personnel, Grant Munday, in the planning department, MNRF (Vineland)Joad Durst and Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority, Carmen D'Angelo. City of Welland personnel never heard of the Crown Patent. Joad Durst shook his head and said something about it being an old piece of paper with no value Carmen D'Angelo informed me it holds no value. I requested all 3 to put something in writing stating the Crown Patent has no validity. Never got it from any of them. Perhaps Grant Munday, Joad Durst and Carmen D'Angelo would explain this?Just Sayinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08755677802148452827noreply@blogger.com