Series 1 Part 10: MUNICIPAL FRAUD

16 Ways Municipalities Victimize Us Under the Color of Law continued

Be sure to also check out Parts One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight and Nine of our UN INVASION of CANADA – ‘Peace Bait’ series and Parts One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight and Nine of our MUNICIPAL FRAUD series.

And now, continuing with our MUNICIPAL FRAUD content, we will look at more of the main ways that property owners are swindled.

We kindly ask that when sharing this research, you appropriately credit People-United, and point people towards our Substack newsletters. Decades have gone into collecting this information and there is much more to come.

#4 Mayors selling off Ontario Property to the Chinese Communist Party (CPP) without consulting the public

It is estimated that approximately one-third of the Ontario landmass, primarily farmland, has been sold off to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) without the knowledge of the People. This is because the land management system in Ontario has been horrifically corrupted by corporate TERANET policies that allow numbered companies to engage in unrestrained title theft, value theft and mortgage fraud.

Please see Series #2 PROPERTY THEFT for details of the scandal plaguing Ontario property owners since 1992.

This document shows how Mayors have been caught facilitating the transfer of our Ontario lands to the CPP (our enemy).

#5 Municipal Recycling programs are a scam

Recycling is literally a scam, see why here. A CBC investigation confirmed it was a huge multi-billion-dollar scam, here.

Municipalities also took the garbage part of the property tax bill, unpacked it into ‘recycling’ and ‘garbage’ while still charging the same for garbage pickup, but also adding recycling fees. The garbage removal now costs more than triple in some cases, but few notice it because it is divided up into various ‘recycling’ services.

By October 2025, in many Ontario municipalities, there is a limit on the number of items a property owner can put out for pickup, but the price for pickup remains the same.

In addition, many municipalities deliberately overestimated the amount of recycle materials their recycling contractor would have to pick up each week. The contracts contain a clause which state that if the amount the contractor picks up and recycles each week is less than the estimate, the municipality must pay them the shortfall. The contractors claim they can’t make money recycling if there are not enough recycling materials to pick up, thus the need for the guaranteed subsidy.

The reference to this ‘over-estimation’ in Ottawa in 2011 is seen in their last paragraph of the report (emphasis added):

“The contract the city signed with composter Orgaworld requires the city to pay for 80,000 tonnes of organic waste. Last year, Ottawans only provided 53,000 tonnes, which was somewhat controversial. But it also means that the city can increase the amount of organic waste it diverts from landfill -- by more than half -- without paying more to Orgaworld.”

Now, that is slick gaslighting. Instead of stating that the taxpayer is paying a contractor for not picking up 27,000 tons of recyclables because they don’t exist, they make it sound like it’s a great deal that this overpayment can be reduced by finding ways to force the population to put out more recyclables.

Yet the problem was the wholesale incompetence of the taxpayer-funded experts who did the estimating that gives the private contractor such an incredible profit for doing nothing.

In other words, one way or another, the contractor must be guaranteed a certain profit for providing this ‘service’, whether or not he provides it.

The taxpayer pays 3 times – once for garbage removal, once for ‘recycling pickup’ (which is garbage any another name), and once to ensure the contractor has made a profit even if he didn’t have to pick up anything.

You can be sure some municipal officials are getting a kick-back to ‘over- estimate’ the amount the contractor will be picking up, as well as to agree to contracts where the contractor not only makes money recycling, but is paid a subsidy when not having enough to recycle because of the municipal officials ‘under-estimation’.

Recently, the ‘experts’ at the City of Ottawa have convinced councilors to limit the amount of waste residents can put out on garbage day, to be followed by the imposition of a per-bag-fee. These limitations ensure the contractor will not have enough to pick up to meet the contract tonnage and will be able to claim the subsidy.

This will ensure that the pay-for-doing-nothing contract will pay off big time when the shortfall increases exponentially.

Put simply, the taxpayer has to guarantee a private for-profit business will make a profit whether they earn it or not.

Why do we smell a racket here, or at least a conflict-of-interest situation? We are told that this is the case right across the province.

Now that residents of Ontario have been taxed to death to ensure recycle contractors can have a guaranteed profit, the Province of Ontario is using the public-private partnership scheme (PPP) created by the United Nations, to transfer control of blue bin recycling to the fully private companies who will then be able to set their rates to make even more profit.

See Series #1 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP FRAUD to learn how the governments both tax us for a service but also turn the service over to the private sector to hold us hostage to provide the service we already pay for in our taxes.

Slowly, through this UN public-private partnership scheme, all services we pay taxes for are turned over to profiteering private corporations to bilk us yet again, while the government continues to increase taxes pretending to provide the same services.

Excerpted from ‘expert’ recommendations to the province regarding turning over public assets to private control (bolded for emphasis):

“Municipalities have made significant investments in facilities and equipment to collect, sort, transfer and process blue box materials.

As producers develop an efficient province-wide collection system, some municipal infrastructure may no longer be needed. The certainty on timing and the ability for municipalities to fairly bid in a competitive process on future services for producers was key to achieving consensus on how to deal with transitioning municipal assets. …

Parties agreed that if producers are given full responsibility and accountability, they must have control to decide which assets will be used in a future collection and management system. Producers should not be forced to use, or pay for, municipal assets they do not need.

Parties agreed that municipalities must be able to bid fairly on future services for producers, and municipalities may decide whether, and how, their existing assets may be part of their bids.”

Buried in slick legalese, is the fact that public assets that the taxpayer has paid for years to develop and maintain, are being transferred to the private sector for profiteering purposes.

An example of this scheme was done with the transfer of the Land Management and Title system of Ontario to privately owned corporation, TERANET, which has, since 2000 and earlier, overcharged Ontarians for services that the government used to provide at cost. See Series #2 PROPERTY THEFT that will be released in a future Series, to learn how not only were our property titles stolen, and mortgage and value theft made a national security issue, but TERANET got our entire system, including staff, for free.

#6 Charging for utilities when property owner withdraws or refuses to contract for utilities

Municipal regulations require that a property owner have a formal agreement with their municipality before the municipality can provide a service. That is, there must be an actual and valid contract.

‘No agreement’ means that no property owner should be forced to pay for water, sewer, etc., that they don’t want or use. Many people prefer to live off grid. Some properties are vacant and others unoccupied.

Following is an excerpt from a municipal by-law that prohibits the charging for services not wanted and not contracted for that was brought to our attention by a patriot.

The property owner’s city water connection has been closed at the street for almost 2 decades, but the city continues to charge monthly for over 15 years already even though for over a decade it could not come up with any contract the owner had signed with the city.

When the water bill is not paid, the Treasurer tacks the water and sewer bill together with interest onto the property tax roll, even though the Treasurer has no legal authority to impose taxes in the first place, as you can see from subsection Fraud #3 (“Imposing Property Taxes is Not Supported by Law!”) discussed in our previous newsletter.

Below is an excerpt from The Corporation of the City of Belleville, By-law number 2019- 81, which is a by-law mandated by the provincial Municipal Act, 2001, S.O.2001, Chapter 25, s. 81 (1) and (2), s. 83, s. 391(1) and s. 398 that requires municipal Councils to pass a by-law to that effect. (The emphasis is ours):

Mandatory supply

86 (1) Despite section 19, a municipality shall supply a building with a water or sewage public utility if,

(a) the building lies along a supply line of the municipality for the public utility;

(b) in the case of a water public utility, there is a sufficient supply of water for the building;

(c) in the case of a sewage public utility, there is sufficient capacity for handling sewage from the building; and

(d) the owner, occupant or other person in charge of the building requests the supply in writing.

In addition, looking at the By-law 2019-81 under Part III Account Administration:

1. Each consumer or his duly authorized agent who desires to receive water and wastewater services shall sign an Application for Service.

4. Water … . The City of Belleville may serve bills upon the customer, by delivery or mail, to an address supplied by the customer.

Definitions

6. CUSTOMER means the owner, tenant or occupant of premises who has signed a contract to receive water or wastewater services from the City of Belleville.

13. PREMISES shall mean the property being supplied or to be supplied with water or wastewater services and includes the portion of a multiple occupancy premises separately supplied.

** Note: an individual is a CONSUMER, until they sign an Application for Service, at which time they become a CUSTOMER, and not until then.

Therefore, if an Application for Service was signed to compel the City to provide the water supply, and if the premises were vacant, the owner would still have to pay Fixed Charges because they have a contract.

However, if there was no signed contract (Application for Service), there is no customer, and no bills can go to a customer who does not exist. A customer exists only if the consumer signed an agreement.

In summary, first a contract must exist, then the service is deemed to be supplied whether the place is vacant or not, then they can send bills because a customer exists.

What did the Ombudsman of Ontario’s office have to say about this extortion when a complaint was brought by an Ontario property owner who never signed a contract and where the property had never been supplied water and sewer services for over 15 years? If the municipality says it has authority that is good enough for the Ombudsman, and they are not interested in the provision that requires a contract first.

Many property owners have reported to People-United that their municipality is forcing them to pay for services they do not want or receive, despite the legislation and their own by-laws. The above is just an example of one of those reports. Not only was there no contract, but there was nothing ‘supplied’.

Some 12 years after the property owner repeatedly demanded that the city stop billing her for water and sewer she had not received and did not want because the property was unoccupied, she brought a small claims court action to recover the monies extorted from her and for an order that there was no contract. That’s when the municipality manufactured an application that created a contract that it claims bound the property owner.

Apparently, once one is alleged to have a ‘contract’, even if the city could not produce it for 12 years and there has never been a drop of water coming to the property for 15 years, the property owner cannot cancel the contract. If the property owner does not pay the fee, the fee plus interest is attached to the tax roll. Yet, there is no provision in the law that says a property owner cannot cancel the contract.

Of course, this is extortion, but the normal behaviour of most municipalities.

#7 Charging a new tax to ‘process’ rain water on rural lands

Everyone knows that when it rains on land, the water gets absorbed into the soil, particularly in rural areas, or runs off into a ditch and flows to the river or lake nearby.

In approximately 2001, most Ontario municipalities had unpacked their Water/Sewer taxes to charge a separate ‘rainwater’ tax. If it rains, and the water goes into the sewer system, the city claims it is processing it separately from the regular sewage and they impose a hefty tax to ‘process’ the rainwater even though no ‘processing’ is required.

This scheme has been expanded. The rain and melted snow on rural lands, that seeps into the ground, as has happened for thousands of years, will be taxed. Not because there are sewers collecting it -- there are not -- but ‘just because’ they can extort landowners for taxes for doing nothing.

Once Ontario’s former Premier Mike Harris illegally forced rural municipalities to merge with large cities, rural dwellers and farmers were rolled into one taxation scheme, subject to the same abuse as those in urban centres.

The City of Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, has decided that even though the rain and melted snow simply seeps into the ground, it will tax the property owners, mostly farmers with a ‘stormwater fee’, over and above the ‘stormwater sewer fee’, claiming that they need to control flooding. Farmlands contribute very little to any purported ‘flooding’.

Usually, however, the flooding is caused deliberately by conservation authorities that control dams, as happened in Ottawa over 2 decades ago to drive people off their waterfront properties.

The city plans to charge houses, businesses, and farms based on how many “impervious surfaces” it has that would direct rainwater into the sewers, such as a paved parking lot. While a local city councilor said the proposal was meant to respond to large commercial plazas, like a Walmart, right now, it’s farmers that will suffer most.

Every primary private residence and building will be charged for water coming off every roof, out of every gutter and so on, even though they already pay storm-sewer taxes, or in rural areas, the water seeps into the ground.

Outraged farmers say Hamilton’s new stormwater fees — a rain tax — risk putting them out of business with annual bills in the thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars. But that’s the whole goal – drive farmers and small businesses into bankruptcy and the population into abject poverty and starvation forever.

It seems that because the public is unaware that s. 17(1)(a) of the Municipal Act, 2001, states municipalities have no authority or power to IMPOSE tax, they will tax farmers and residents to death as part of the corporate municipality for-profit goals, while hording billions in creatively hidden surpluses.

#8 Spending Taxpayer Money to Push Foreign Ideologies

Did you know that municipal mayors pledged to the UN Compact of Mayors wherein they spend taxpayer money, not on maintaining the municipality and providing services, but in being in compliance with UN dictates and without consulting their residents?

See here a discussion about how the 360 Mayors involved in the Compact intend to cut emissions in their municipality by 17% at 2030.

See the Section titled ‘Compact of Traitor Mayors’ in Part 1 of Series #1 MUNICIPAL FRAUD to learn how they operate as an international criminal ‘gang’ to enforce UN climate change and Agenda 2030 policies, despite there being clear scientific evidence that as with all other UN schemes, the purported climate change crisis is a massive hoax.

Also, to see how this Compact works at the local level, see here.

In other words, the mayors of Ontario do not work for Ontarians; they are bound to the UN World Government as servants of UN ideologies -- the Compact of Mayors are governed according to UN dictates and NEVER consult those footing this bill and massive new bureaucracy.

When the public is forced to pay illegal property taxes to a municipality so that it can funnel the money to the UN and its globalist projects, and do it quietly behind everyone’s backs, it qualifies as fraud in our view.

See ‘Mayor [of Ramara, Ontario) Under Fire After Cancellation of a Christian Event at Public Library’, here.

“Every aspect of the government is being taken over by the World Economic Forum, and this is proof-positive,” says a resident of Ramara, Ontario, adding that the decision was made by an unelected bureaucrat working under the mayor.

By 2025, many Christian events and entertainers were being ‘cancelled’ right across Canada by these globalist-captured Mayors and councilors. See our WAR ON CHRISTIANITY Series when it is published in the future.

In Quebec, a law known as Bill 21 prohibits some public servants, including teachers and other government employees in positions of authority, from wearing religious symbols while at work. Note: that is Quebec and it has the right to make law in Quebec, because it is a sovereign nation too, just as are all other former provinces.

Canada’s mayors treat the public purse as a personal spending account to mount a challenge to Quebec’s Bill 21, which will make a great deal of sense to anyone who reads the ISLAMIC INVASION Series that will be released in a future Series.

Brampton Mayor Patrick Brown committed $100,000 of municipal funding to the legal action against the law that is being launched by the National Council of Canadian Muslims and called for other municipalities to do the same.

That’s $100,000 of YOUR money that he is using to tell a totally sovereign province (a nation-state since 1931) what to do and that is supporting a Muslim organization linked to the terrorist group Muslim Brotherhood.

Ontario is also a sovereign nation-state since 1931, but few Ontarians know this fact, so we act as though we are part of a single sovereign state called Canada. Please see our upcoming Series #3 CONSTITUTION-CHARTER FRAUD to understand how and why there is no Canada and only separate sovereign nation-states (formerly provinces).

Calgary, Alberta Mayor Jyoti Gondek agreed to match the $100,000 contribution with Calgary taxpayer funds, and added the following statement:

“What Quebec is doing is absolutely unconscionable. We are issuing a challenge to other municipalities in this country, asking them to contribute towards the legal challenge to get rid of Bill 21”.

No traitor! It is unconscionable that taxpayer dollars are being used to attack a sovereign nation, Quebec, that is doing the exact thing that needs to be done to stop the Islamic political force from taking over their government.

What is a Canadian municipality doing spending tax dollars to support a Muslim legal action?? There is NO provision in any law that allows such waste of money.

A serious concern is the undeniable religious favoritism that is clearly at play. While churches were being burned and vandalized en masse across Canada in 2021 because state-run media was deliberately running a false story about mass graves, many of these politicians couldn’t so much as utter a word of support for Christian communities.

Not to mention the deafening silence coming from Calgary Mayor Gondek when two pastors were arrested in her own city for doing nothing more than exercising their religious freedom to congregate and pray in their own Churches.

On the other hand, one teacher is removed from her classroom because of her religious attire, and we are suddenly meant to believe that these political frauds are all devout champions of religious freedom? Clearly, that is only certain religions’ freedoms.

These municipal frauds financing a Muslim lawsuit with OUR money, is a crime, plain and simple.

Would you like just one of many examples of a radical Ontario city council embracing Marxist tactics to enforce ideological purity across all councilors and to make an example out of the one councilor willing to actually speak up and be a voice for the silent majority?

Pickering, Ontario city councilor Lisa Robinson was given a 60-day suspension without pay for advancing the interests of her constituents who demand an end to the promotion of sodomy and the Pride flags on public property, and who want separate, protected change rooms and bathrooms for biological females, particularly in educational facilities.

In the Pickering Integrity Commissioner’s findings, Lisa Robinson is accused of “promoting attitudes which are homophobic and transphobic”. Never mind that the Christian Bible that the majority of the Christian population believes in, calls sodomy a sin.

When the integrity commissioner is Marxist in attitude, anti-Christian, pro- sodomy and keen on mutilating children for the transgender cult, they are hardly a good choice to judge another’s integrity. The ‘Integrity’ Commissioner clearly is so intellectually-challenged, that they don’t know there are only males and females, not 78 genders!

Canadian mayors need a serious reality check. They were elected to manage municipal affairs, not wage ideological battles across Canada to pervert our society even worse than it is now by using our money as though their personal expense accounts.

Canadians are following the rules, so can immigrants. But many of these 3rd world migrants are staging endless ‘victimhood’ campaigns to our detriment, inching closer and closer to complete control of our governments and courts.

When the World Government says ‘jump’, Canadian Mayors obviously controlled by the World Government/UN ask ‘how high’, and it matters not if they use taxpayer money to jump. This gang-stalking of Quebec law- makers is a perfect example. Another example is the unilateral declarations by Toronto Mayor, John Tory, that Toronto was a ‘sanctuary city’, welcoming all from far and wide to come and sleep on the streets and be supported by hard-working Canadians for whom there is no ‘sanctuary’ from the criminality.

Another example is how when Mayors aren’t busy using our tax dollars to fund legal battles in other provinces, they are hard at work generating hysteria over non-existent climate emergencies, and pushing for carbon taxation.

E-transfer tips within Canada:
ADMIN-PU@proton.me

#9 Taking constructive possession of private property using by-laws

Illegal Implementation and Enforcement of Property Standard and Clean-Yard By-Laws on Private Property:

According to Section 9 of the Municipal Act, after incorporating the private property owner into its corporation, a municipality is then made to appear as though it has the privilege of operating as a human being:

Municipal Act, 2002 Body corporate

4 (1) The inhabitants of every municipality are incorporated as a body corporate.

Powers of a natural person

9 A municipality has the capacity, rights, powers and privileges of a natural person for the purpose of exercising its authority under this or any other Act.

** Note: Section 9 means that the municipality has no more powers or authority on property it does not own, than you or I would have on another’s property without their consent.

Powers exercised by by-law

5(3) A municipal power, including a municipality’s capacity, rights, powers and privileges under section 9, shall be exercised by by-law unless the municipality is specifically authorized to do otherwise.

Scope

(2) Subsections (1) to (3) apply to all municipal powers, whether conferred by this Act or otherwise.

As we have shown in the section titled ‘#2 By acting as Agent without property owner consent and registering private property title to itself’ in our previous newsletter, the ‘otherwise’ would include the Land Titles Act. That is, since no natural person has the power or authority, to make themselves agent of another property owner without that other giving fully informed consent, then neither does the municipality have that authority, unless it knows something the property owners don’t.

Municipalities are clearly limited by superior laws to exercise that power and authority over property it owns (or controls), and when exercising that power, must do it by by-law. Further, this limitation applies to powers authorized under the Municipal Act or any other Act (such as the Land Titles Act).

It is clear that under our system of de facto corporate governance, the ‘natural person’ imagined by the framers of these pieces of legal fraud (legislation) is a criminal and a tyrant, who has no moral or ethical boundaries, thus explaining why the ‘natural person’ municipality is stealing and destroying lives with impunity.

The Municipal Act, 2001, also makes it impossible to sue for negligence or wrong-doing, as long as the wrong-doing was done in an undefined ‘good faith’.

The UN Planning army and its many subsets, as you learn from the special document we provide in our upcoming Series #1 ‘PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP RACKET -- such as Committees of Adjustment, Heritage Planners, Land Tribunals (formerly Ontario Municipal Board (OMB)) -- is a closed, corrupt and criminal system.

The municipal police forces, the court system, and lawyers and their Law Societies, facilitate the writing of by-laws rubber-stamped by the Global Mayor and council. They ALL impose on private property and ALL diminish the owner’s investment in their property.

The Municipal Licensing and Law Enforcement Forum is another taxpayer-funded bureaucracy whose job it is to deprive property owners of the privacy and enjoyment of their properties. Licencing has nothing to do with safety, but it is a great wealth transfer scheme.

This is only one of many layers of people hired to impose on private property ownership. Then there is CLEAR, ICLEI, Federation of Ontario Municipalities... the number of toxic UN ‘droppings’ is endless.

Planners are corrupt tools of the UN and private property owners have been attacked on every flank by these ‘authorities. To see more detail about how they operate, please see Series #1 MUNICIPAL PLANNER FRAUD when it is published in the future.

To add to the fray and heartaches for property owners, we have ‘volunteer’ Committees of Adjustment. They have training in nothing, and are run by the nose by the Planners, usually the ‘Manager of Approvals’ (of developments) or some such authority at the City.

Time and again, these ‘committees’ do not make decisions based on the principles of natural justice and common sense, but instead on what the Planners want. Often they do not even read the Applications for Minor Variances that they are supposed to be considering.

There is ample evidence that developers often get approvals from these committees for ‘minor’ variances, that are a long way from ‘minor’, while ordinary property owners are denied even logical variances so that they can make best use of their property, such as level a front yard to accommodate safe parking.

For a very good article on the corruption and fraud in the minor variance scheme at the City of Ottawa (this is reflective of how all municipalities operate), click here.

It should be abundantly clear by 2022, that you can occupy your property, pay illegal property taxes for the privilege of using the land you paid for, but you need the corporate conservation authority or municipality’s permission to do anything.

They can enter your property at any time, remove what they wish, tell you how to maintain your property and what is valuable and permitted on the property and what is not.

In addition, they can steal your personal property and do all the damage they wish under the various pretexts, such as ‘clean yards by-laws’ and ‘property standards enforcement’; THEY HAVE FULL IMMUNITY FROM LIABILITY FOR THIS DAMAGE and theft.

Not every piece of paper that blows onto an unoccupied property warrants dragging the property owner through litigation and property standard processes with $10,000/day fines.

Not every anonymous complaint about unkempt grass on private property warrants violating the private property owner’s right to use his/her property as they see fit, including to grow herbs, traditional grasses and pollinator habitats, or even to keep a vehicle for parts.

If the property owner has incurred any loss or damages because of the conduct of the municipality or any of its employees or agents, such conduct is always claimed to be the result of the exercise or non-exercise, or performance or non-performance of a discretionary function resulting from a policy decision made in a good faith exercise of that discretion.

If they have the capacity of a natural person/individual, how can they have any ‘discretion’ to enter and damage another’s property that regular people do not have?

At their discretion they can trespass onto any property, with the attitude that they ‘own’ the property and are the final say as to how it will be used, and do whatever they wish, such as mow a habitat or herb plot into the dirt. Worse, there is NOTHING a property owner can do about it. Bolding is ours:

Municipal Act, 2001 SO 2001 c25 as amended
Section 450

Policy decisions

450 No proceeding based on negligence in connection with the exercise or non-exercise of a discretionary power or the performance or non-performance of a discretionary function, if the action or inaction results from a policy decision of a municipality or local board made in a good faith exercise of the discretion, shall be commenced against,

(a) a municipality or local board;

(b) a member of a municipal council or of a local board; or an officer, employee or agent of a municipality or local board.

**Note: translation is that the private, UN-controlled corporations and their staff, including the Global Mayors and councilors, the CAO and Clerk, cannot be sued for the damage they cause.

By falling on this convenient provision of the Municipal Act, municipal theft and damage to private property, by municipalities and their employees and agents are immune from the Criminal Code of Canada and in fact municipal corporations are elevated above the Code entirely. They can steal any personal property from a property, including brand-new building materials, simply by alleging that it is ‘debris’ or ‘useless’.

Many municipalities, such as this one (City of Belleville, Ontario) also insert a provision in their Clean-Yards By-laws immunizing themselves from police investigation and prosecution. Click here to read the bylaw for yourself.

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BELLEVILLE BY-LAW NUMBER: 2014-120 BEING A BY-LAW TO PROVIDE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF LAND IN A CLEAN AND CLEAR CONDITION

5.3 The Municipality shall not be liable to the Owner or any other person by reason of any work conducted, the storage of any item or any other loss during the exercise of the powers contained within this By-Law.

In a Belleville case reported to us, the City took unused sheets of plywood, pressure-treated lumber, a new aluminum door and casing, cut down herbs, young gooseberry bushes and a young apple tree, among other things, all because a Property Standards Officer decided everything was debris and grass. Someone received thousands of dollars of the property owner’s building materials but these ‘officials’ are immune from a proper police investigation and orders of restitution.

Documents show that the City-issued cheque paid to the purported contractor hired to do the work was delivered to the Property Standards Officer!

In addition, they have a Property Standards By-Law that allows someone hired as a Property Standards Officer to have absolutely no experience or knowledge of the Ontario Building Code, let alone the Provincial policy statement on pollinator habitats and herbs.

The Building Code allows enforcement of building standards where there is an ‘unacceptable risk of harm’, but these Property Standards Officers get to strip a property down to the dirt, based on their own world view of how the property should be used and how it should ‘look’.

The Property Standards By-Laws not only over-ride the Ontario Building Code but impose ludicrous requirements on private property that in fact deprive property owners of the use of their property altogether in many instances.

Belleville Bylaw 2012-79 Property Standards - amended by 2018-82 (see here).

OFFENCE AND PENALTY PROVISIONS

7.5 Any property that does not meet the standards set by this Bylaw shall be repaired and maintained to conform with the standards set by this Bylaw or the site shall be cleared of all buildings, structures, debris or refuse and left in graded and leveled condition.

**Note: the municipality sets ‘standards’ for private property they never acquired, but as we stated earlier, they do this because they know that we don’t know that the province incorporated the inhabitants of the geographical area -- and by extension their properties -- into the corporation, making private property ‘public’ property.

7.6 An owner who fails to comply with an order issued by a Property Standards Officer Provincial Offences Officer is guilty of an offence and upon conviction is subject to a fine/penalty as provided by the Building Code Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c.23 as amended from time to time.

7.7 If this Bylaw is contravened and a conviction entered, the Court in which the conviction was entered or any Court of competent jurisdiction may, in addition to any other remedy and to any penalty that is imposed, make an order prohibiting the continuation or repetition of the offence by the person convicted.

7.8 If the owner fails to do the remedial or maintenance work necessary to meet the requirements of this Bylaw or an order issued pursuant to this Bylaw the Municipality may do the required remedial or maintenance work at the owner’s expense and the Municipality may recover the costs of doing such work by action or by adding the cost to the tax roll and collecting the costs in the same manner as property taxes. The aforesaid costs shall include an administrative fee of $150.00 plus $50.00 for each inspection that is made following the issuance of the City Action Letter, and interest calculated on the costs and the administrative fee at the rate of 15%, calculated for the period commencing on the day the Municipality incurs the costs and ending on the day the costs, including interest, are paid in full.

7.9 The Municipality shall have a lien on the owner’s land for the amount spent on the repair or demolition under an order issued by a Property Standards Officer/Property Offences Officer and the amount shall have priority lien status as described in section 1 of the Municipal Act, 2001 as amended from time to time.

#10 Making trespassing and theft legal

Ontario Municipalities have given themselves the authority to enter any private property any time they wish for any reason.

As seen below, Brampton is one example, while another is the City of Peterborough, as see here.

Brampton has introduced a clever way to do warrantless searches, to impose all sorts of building requirements, and to drive a small landlord into debt doing renovations.

“Brampton launched a landlord accountability program in select wards; tenants frustrated over exemption of corporate property owners.”

It’s a pilot project for now, but we all should know that soon enough it will be imposed across Ontario, BUT ONLY ON SMALL LANDLORDS because the Residential Tenancy Act does not apply to corporate rental properties.

With the Landlord Tenant Board missing in action for the last 3 years, and some say a lot longer, the municipality will now give itself entry powers on the basis of any complaint by any tenant, and even if there is no complaint.

Since they want to build yet another large bureaucracy, they will be ‘inspecting’ a great deal to justify their bureaucracy, harassing small landlords to death and into bankruptcy, and of course, hiring many new $100,000 + / year staff.

According to the Criminal Code, no one can enter a private home without a search warrant or except in the case of an emergency, such as a crime in progress.

Now, private property is private no longer. Allow a tenant to move in and you just have consented to having corrupt municipal officials show up without notice and to tell you how to maintain your property.

As we noted in the previous section, Property Standards Officers have already given themselves the authority to trespass on private property through by-laws such as Clean Yards and Property Standards.

Through these by-laws they enter private property any time they wish to do any ‘inspection’ they wish; they see their job as ensuing that you maintain YOUR property in the manner they prefer.

We have been shown a transcript of an Examination for Discovery of a Chief Building Official (CBO) of an Ontario municipality who testified that he sees his role, not as intervening only when there is an unacceptable risk of harm as authorized by the Building Code of Ontario, BUT TO ENSURE THAT THE QUALITY OF THE RENOVATIONS AND BUILDINGS WILL BE A GOOD INVESTMENT FOR THE NEXT OWNER.

It is obvious the Chief Building Official (CBO) knows the new ‘owner’ of the Canadian landmass is the United Nations that is in the process of removing people from their lands in a myriad of ways.

In most Ontario municipalities, they will demand that herb gardens and pollinator habitats be mowed to the dirt, despite the province issuing directives that it wants to see such gardens and habitats recover.

By simple by-law, some lawless municipal officials have waltzed right into homes under renovation and demanded expensive retro-fits to accommodate their ‘opinions’ as to how the property must be maintained to be up to their arbitrary standards, which will in turn be based on what a tenant wants. This interference generates millions of dollars in revenue for the municipality and the official is only too happy to justify his high salary.

You will maintain YOUR property the way the municipality wants its property maintained, or else! This is more proof that municipalities believe, despite all the superior legislation and case law, that they own you and your property and run their business for profit. After all, a corporate municipality is defined as a geographical area where all property owners are ‘incorporated’ into the corporation.

The government never interferes with the taking of corporate profits from rental property investment corporations that can afford the lawyers to take down the by-law – so all such intrusions are targeted only at those they know can’t afford to fight City Hall.

It’s the private property owners/small landlords they want out of the rental picture, and homeless.

#11 Taxing vacant properties and rental units

As you learned from subsection ‘#3 By imposing illegal property taxes’ in our previous newsletter, municipalities have absolutely no authority to IMPOSE taxes. They spin it as though they do, but they don’t have any power or authority to IMPOSE taxes on primary residences of men and women, and farmlands.

If you habitually just pay the taxes demanded when you get a notice, then they are not technically ‘imposing’ them. However, if you challenge the corporate municipality with the law and evidence, it is abundantly clear they are IMPOSING taxes if they don’t stop. So, they will ignore you, outright misrepresent the law, and if you persist, they will start attacking you and your family using the Building Code Inspectors, the Property Standard’s Officers and of course, the UN’s army of Planners.

Some of you, of course, enjoy paying property taxes because you believe that you are doing ‘your share’ to keep up the municipality, without ever researching that the municipality is a for-profit corporation, hording billions of dollars in surplus, operating a massive bureaucracy for no good reason but to enrich and reward political ‘friends’. And that is your right, of course. The table of surpluses that we provided in our previous newsletter is named EX 2.

However, a property tax is not only being illegally imposed under the pretext that such monies are needed to run the municipality in property owners’ interests, but the Municipal Act says nothing at all about the many other taxes that municipalities ‘impose’ without justification.

There was case law that held that all taxes must be directly linked to the purpose for which municipalities can tax, but of course, since the UN took over our courts, those too are treated as irrelevant.

When a property is vacant, it is not costing the municipality more to service the property and likely even less than when occupied. There is no possible way, therefore, that applying an additional 1% of property taxes to the property taxes when the property is unoccupied, is anything but extortion and theft.

Applying a tax to force a property owner to use his/her property in the manner the corporate municipality wants is using taxation punitively, and there is no act that allows that use, that we can find.

All these new property taxes that have nothing to do with the cost of providing services were facilitated by the change in the 1990s (by the UN) from the old regime where the cost of running the municipality and providing services was proportionately paid for by all users. After the UN was done, property taxes were based on the value of the property, whether or not it required more or less services than prior to the regime change. This meant that property owners were at the mercy of the corrupt real estate cartel that caused housing prices to skyrocket.

Once the value skyrocketed, the value of the property for taxation purposes was set at that rate and never came down, even once the artificial real estate bubble burst.

This new extorted money goes right into the for-profit municipal corporations’ bank account and does nothing whatever for the property owner overtaxed this way.

#12 Vacant Unit Tax to force landlords to rent

The UN has a clever scheme for finding out how many and who lives in a private residence, even though this is private information. This scheme also dictates to a property owner that any dwelling unit in their private residence that is left unoccupied for more than 6 months is subject to a hefty Vacant Unit Tax.

Taxation used to be about generating enough revenue to manage the municipality, but no more. Now it is used as a ‘punishment’ and coercion to force property owners to rent out units they prefer not to rent out, to tenants they want nothing to do with.

The housing crisis was a deliberate scheme of the UN implemented in 2017, so that it could later impose Vacancy Taxes, both to swindle property owners out of the exclusive use of the property they paid for, but also to end all privacy rights.

The pretext is that this tax was recently necessary to force people to rent their unoccupied space whether they wish to or not, as a means of increasing the availability of rental units so that the provincial government can save face.

The truth is that consistent with the globalist’s ability to play the long- game, the Vacancy Tax legislation was put in place way back in early 2017 to follow the planned 2020 housing crisis caused by the Liberal government and the UN Planner army. See the 43rd version of the Municipal Act, 2001 (Ontario) effective May 17th, 2017, and note that for the first time (see Table of Contents), Part lX.1 Optional Tax on Vacant Residential Units is listed.

If you check the earlier 42nd version of this Act, which was effective May 16th, 2017, you will see there was no Vacancy Tax option for municipalities.

LIKE WE SAID, this tax was planned many years ago because the housing crisis was also very much planned, as was the migrant crisis, the drug overdose crisis, COVID lockdowns, and soon the climate change lockdowns.

Millions of migrants are flooding the country and they want property owners to house them. Many have no means of support and have little familiarity with how we live and maintain an apartment in Canada, therefore they end up living rent-free and the landlord is expected to absorb the damage repair expenses.

As you will learn shortly, this Vacant Unit Tax works in tandem with the amendments to the Residential Tenancy Act that now makes it impossible to evict a tenant who does not pay their rent and/or who does damage to the unit.

In November 2022, Ontario municipalities gave property owners notice they were FORCING property owners to rent their rental units under the penalty of having a ‘vacancy tax’ charged to their property if the property owner fails to disclose to the municipality what units they have and whether they are occupied, with a deadline to provide such private information being by March 2023. See the example of the City of Ottawa threat of a vacancy tax provided here.

If you fail to tell the City what’s transpiring on your property, you are automatically charged the additional 1%, which on average, adds about $450 to an annual property tax bill.

Some Ottawa property owners could pay $250 or more just for failing to check a box on the City’s website. The Vacant Unit tax being introduced on 2023 property bills comes with this mandatory step embedded. See the CBC News report of March 1, 2022 here.

Here is the Toronto version of the ‘Vacancy Tax’ threat and transfer of control of private property to the municipality.

The property owner no longer gets to decide if they want to rent an apartment in their home or rent out their home when on extended stays out of the country. If they do not rent these vacant units and homes, they will be taxed for not renting.

This means that if you want to live in Arizona for 8 months of the year as you have a right to do, or if you must go out of town to work as do so many oil patch workers and you don’t want strangers living in your house, your property taxes will increase.

The reason that there is a housing crisis in the first place is two-fold:

• run away migration to Canada due to open borders and fraudulent Immigration policies, and

• because the UN-controlled Landlord and Tenancy Board of Ontario (LTB Ontario) has so thoroughly taken constructive possession of a property that even a solid and otherwise binding contract between the landlord and tenant is interfered with.

Thousands of landlords have shouldered the burden of thousands of dollars in tenant damages to property because they cannot simply evict a bad tenant due to the Landlord Tenant Board (LTB) blockades. Now, many property owners are not interested in renting out spare space in their homes.

As of January 1, 2023, the only phone number for the LTB of Ontario provides a fast busy signal day and night, as though the line needs repair.

The LTB Ontario fax number has not been in service since January 2021. All emails get a response that they are very busy and there might not be a response for a few months.

We confirmed that the Ottawa-East Region Office of the LTB located on Albert Street, Ottawa, is not open to accept Applications for a Hearing by registered mail or courier. To deliver by hand, you must call the number that doesn’t work and make an appointment that could be 2-3 months down the road.

In addition, the processing time to get an Application Hearing date once you finally get your application filed, is 8-9 months and expected to increase to over one year shortly.

In June 2022, the LTB Ontario website (be patient for the webpage to load) stated the following:

“As part of our modernization initiatives, most applications and documents can be submitted electronically, by mail or courier.

Our in-person service counters will remain closed until further notice. Submitting applications and documents electronically is easy, fast and convenient.”

** Note: Tribunals are the UN’s Administrative Law system that runs parallel to the regular court system, and that is intended to deprive Canadians of access to justice altogether.

** Note: forcing people to go online is the implementation of the UN’s digital, cashless systems. Trying to load anything on the Tribunal system is a nightmare. In some cases, people have paid for transcripts of Tribunal hearings, and never received the transcript, and all follow-ups for the transcripts are ignored by the Tribunal authorities.

Public-private partnerships (PPPs or P3s) are the brainchild of the United Nations – they are the means of sliding the UN government and its tribunals into position without anyone noticing.

Back to the public-private partnership that is the Landlord Tenant Board of Ontario (LTB), created by the Ontario Residential Tenancy Act …

While a property owner can normally defend himself and his property from damage, they waive those rights if they rent a unit on the property. If a landlord interferes with the tenant in any way, they can be charged under the Provincial Offences Act and find themselves in court.

Landlords must stand by and watch the damage being done, and endure a total loss of enjoyment of their properties, while spending thousands of dollars to navigate the many forms and hearings before the Landlord and Tenant Board.

Usually, the Board will find in favor of the tenant, allow them to continue to not pay rent and/or to do damage for several more months (grace period) before a Sheriff can be called upon to evict the tenants.

Even after a Sheriff has removed the evicted tenants, they can still enter to get their possessions and of course do more damage.

Just a few short years ago, before the Residential Tenancy Act was amended to ‘protect’ tenants, there were 660,000 single family dwellings with an additional suite. We did not see the landlord/tenant issue we see today.

The landlord/tenant issues are caused directly by the Board that emboldens tenants to not pay rent or to do damage and live free for months as the landlord grinds his/her way through the process. Some landlords have not seen a cent in rent for years.

Most landlords are decent and like to maintain their properties in good condition, but the Board leniencies with bad tenants and the inaccessibility of the Board to even get a Hearing, have caused thousands of small landlords to exit the rental market entirely and some to lose their homes.

The interference of the UN government’s LTB in what should be private contracts between a landlord and tenant, serves as a disincentive for the homeowner thinking of creating a rental unit, as well as the small entrepreneurial landlord ready to invest in a rental property.

Moreover, it spurs experienced landlords to exit the rental business, all of which help to further erode the supply of rental housing and force tenants into the waiting arms of institutional rental companies that set unacceptable and unjustified rents.

It takes many months to go through the LTB process and in the meantime, the landlord can be put through sheer terror. When you cannot evict a bad tenant before they do damage or face almost $12,000 in costs, you know that the property is not your own.

Already, by January 2023, the following information for the LTB Ontario is wholly outdated: it takes 12 months just to get a hearing, another 3 months for the Sheriff to evict and there is no means for recovering lost rent and repair costs. The wait times in 2024 are 1-2 years.

The Vacancy Tax is all arbitrary, all a money grab and has absolutely nothing to do with providing municipal services. It was about forcing small landlords into bankruptcy, and to provide migrants with free lodging.

What was that you thought about having ‘private property rights’? Many people have signs; many people attend landowner meetings for years. But nothing works because when we accept corporate governance, we have ZERO to say about anything. We are the private property of the corporation and it’s all in their fraudulent laws, such as the Municipal Act.

— End of Series 1 Part 10 MUNICIPAL FRAUD —

In our next MUNICIPAL FRAUD newsletter, we will continue looking at the main ways that property owners are swindled.

Thank you for your attention and any help that you can send our way, from sharing widely to sharing more evidence that you may have with us, or tips or subscriptions. While we could use financial support, it is more important to us that this information gets out to as many people as possible, as fast as possible.

Also, please let us know if any of our hyperlinks have stopped working so that we can fix them. Thank you.

People-United
people-united.ca

E-transfer tips within Canada:
ADMIN-PU@proton.me