Series 1 Part 5: MUNICIPAL FRAUD
Municipal Officials Wilfully Violating Federal, Provincial Law
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 and Four of our MUNICIPAL FRAUD series.
And now, we continue with our MUNICIPAL FRAUD content. In this newsletter, we will continue looking at ways that provincial law, criminal law, common law and case law limit a municipality’s power and authority over private property
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.
Regulations under the Municipal Act, 2001, limiting the power and authority of municipalities over private property, some of which carry prohibitions in Official Plans:
Municipal Act, 2001
More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022, SO 2022, c 21 Schedule 9 affects the Planning Act as follows:
Restrictions for residential units
(3) No official plan may contain any policy that has the effect of prohibiting the use of,
(a) two residential units in a detached house, semi-detached house or rowhouse on a parcel of urban residential land, if all buildings and structures ancillary to the detached house, semi-detached house or rowhouse cumulatively contain no more than one residential unit;
(b) three residential units in a detached house, semi-detached house or rowhouse on a parcel of urban residential land, if no building or structure ancillary to the detached house, semi-detached house or rowhouse contains any residential units; or
(c) one residential unit in a building or structure ancillary to a detached house, semi-detached house or rowhouse on a parcel of urban residential land, if the detached house, semi-detached house or rowhouse contains no more than two residential units and no other building or structure ancillary to the detached house, semi-detached house or rowhouse contains any residential units.
Same, parking
(3.1) No official plan may contain any policy that has the effect of requiring more than one parking space to be provided and maintained in connection with a residential unit referred to in subsection (3).
Same, minimum unit size
(3.2) No official plan may contain any policy that provides for a minimum floor area of a residential unit referred to in subsection (3).
Policies of no effect
(3.3) A policy in an official plan is of no effect to the extent that it contravenes a restriction described in subsection (3), (3.1), or (3.2).
4 (1) Subsection 16 (3) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted:
No appeal re additional residential unit by-laws
(19.1) Despite subsection (19), there is no appeal in respect of the parts of a by-law that are passed to permit the use of,
(a) a second residential unit in a detached house, semi-detached house or rowhouse on a parcel of land on which residential use, other than ancillary residential use, is permitted, if all buildings and structures ancillary to the detached house, semi-detached house or rowhouse cumulatively contain no more than one residential unit;
(b) a third residential unit in a detached house, semi-detached house or rowhouse on a parcel of land on which residential use, other than ancillary residential use, is permitted, if no building or structure ancillary to the detached house, semi-detached house or rowhouse contains any residential units; or
(c) one residential unit in a building or structure ancillary to a detached house, semi-detached house or rowhouse on a parcel of urban residential land, if the detached house, semi-detached house or rowhouse contains no more than two residential units and no other building or structure ancillary to the detached house, semi-detached house or rowhouse contains any residential units.
12 (1) Subsection 42 (0.1) of the Act is amended by repealing the definition of “dwelling unit”.
Additional Residential Units, O Reg 299/19
This is an important regulation in any situation where a private property owner wants to add an additional living unit (apartment).
Ontario Regulation 384/94 Apartments in Houses
Classes of Houses
2. (1) Subject to subsection (2), clause 16 (2) (a), subsection 31 (3.1) and clause 35 (1) (a) of the Act apply to the following classes of houses:
1. A detached house, if it occupies the whole of a building.
2. A semi-detached house if,
i. it occupies part of a building, where the remainder of the building is occupied by another semi-detached house and the two houses are divided on the vertical plane in such a manner that there is no internal access from one semi-detached house to the other, and
ii. it has not been created through the alteration of a detached house.
3. A rowhouse if,
i. it occupies part of a building, where the remainder of the building is occupied by two or more rowhouses and the rowhouses are divided on the vertical plane in such a manner that there is no internal access from one to any other, and
ii. it has not been created through the alteration of a detached or semi-detached house.
(2) A house belongs to one of the classes set out in subsection (1) only if,
(a) it consists of space currently used for, or intended for use for, primarily residential purposes;
(b) it contains one or two residential units;
(c) it is not ancillary to any other house or use; and
(d) it is located in a zone that permits residential use other than as an ancillary use.
(3) Subsections (1) and (2) apply to a house regardless of whether the house is constructed before or after the day section 49 of the Residents’ Rights Act, 1994 is proclaimed in force and, in the case of a house with two residential units, regardless of whether,
(a) the installation of the second residential unit occurs before or after the day that section 49 of the Residents’ Rights Act, 1994 is proclaimed in force; or
(b) the installation of the second residential unit occurs at the time of the original construction of the house. O. Reg. 384/94, s. 2.
General Rule
5. Except as provided for in sections 6 through 16, no planning document shall apply to a detached house, semi-detached house or rowhouse containing two residential units standards that are more restrictive or onerous than standards which would apply to a detached house, semi-detached house or rowhouse, as the case may be, that contains one residential unit and is at the same location. O. Reg. 384/94, s. 5.
Installation and Renovation of Second Units
6 (2) No planning document shall prohibit,
(a) exterior alterations required for the installation of a second residential unit in a house; or
(b) the alteration of a house containing two residential units,
unless, as a result of those alterations, the house would contravene standards in the planning documents which relate to the building envelope of the house.
(3) Despite subsection (2), a planning document may,
(a) restrict exterior alterations to the front facade of a house or any other facade that faces a public road that abuts the frontage, as identified in a planning document, of the property relating to the house; and
(b) regulate the minimum distance between a window in a house and any other window which it faces.
(4) Subject to subsection (7), no planning document shall prohibit the installation of a second residential unit in a house on the basis that the house, but for subsection 34 (9) of the Act, would contravene a standard in the planning document.
(5) Subject to subsection (7), no planning document shall prohibit the continuing use or the renovation of a house described in paragraph 2 of subsection 2 (1) on the basis that,
(a) the house was originally built to include two residential units and the house, but for subsection 34 (9) of the Act, would contravene a standard in the planning document; or
(b) the installation of a second residential unit was undertaken in compliance with the planning documents then in effect, but the resulting house containing two residential units, but for subsection 34 (9) of the Act, would contravene a standard in the planning document.
(6) Subject to subsection (7), no planning document shall prohibit the installation of a second residential unit in a house on the basis that an alteration to the interior of a house would result in a contravention of or would extend or enlarge an existing contravention of standards in a planning document which have the effect of regulating,
(a) the permitted number or location of floors in the house used or capable of being used for human habitation;
(b) the relationship between the area of a house which can be used for human habitation and the area of the property on which the house is located; or
(c) the maximum area of a house which can be used for human habitation.
Unit Density
9. No planning document shall prohibit the installation of a second residential unit in a house on the basis that such an installation would mean that the maximum number of units permitted per hectare or acre or permitted for a particular geographic area is exceeded. O. Reg. 384/94, s. 9.
Age of Structure
10. No planning document shall require, as a precondition to the installation of a second residential unit or the continued use of two existing residential units in a house,
(a) that it be constructed before or after a certain date; or
(b) that it be at least or no more than a certain age.
Municipal Act, 2001
ONTARIO REGULATION 586/06
Local Improvement Charges — priority lien status
1(1) “private” means, with respect to a work or property, a work or property that is not owned by the municipality or a local board of the municipality;
2(4) Nothing in this Regulation authorizes a municipality to enter and undertake a work as a local improvement on private property without the permission of the owner or other person having the authority to grant such permission.
Local improvements, private property
36.1 In accordance with this Part, a municipality may raise the cost of undertaking works as local improvements on private property by imposing special charges on the lots of consenting property owners upon which all or part of the works are or will be located. O. Reg. 322/12, s. 7.
[Note: municipal corporations require the permission/consent of the private property owner to undertake any work or improvement on the property]
Also note the following definition of private property in Black’s Law dictionary, 6th edition:
Private Property:
“As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels. Scranton v. Wheeler, 179 U.S. 141, 21 S.Ct. 48, 45 L.Ed. 126.
Municipal Bylaws cannot conflict with or frustrate superior legislation. That is, it cannot undermine the purpose of a provincial or federal act/regulation or legislative instrument, and this is indicated in the Municipal Act, 2001 itself:
Municipal Act, 2001
Conflict between by-law and statutes, etc.
14 (1) A by-law is without effect to the extent of any conflict with,
(a) a provincial or federal Act or a regulation made under such an Act; or
(b) an instrument of a legislative nature, including an order, licence or approval, made or issued under a provincial or federal Act or regulation. 2001, c. 25, s. 14.
Same
(2) Without restricting the generality of subsection (1), there is a conflict between a by-law of a municipality and an Act, regulation or instrument described in that subsection if the by-law frustrates the purpose of the Act, regulation or instrument.
[note: a municipal bylaw is of no force or effect (ultra-vires) if it conflicts or frustrates (undermines) the purpose of a superior act, regulation or piece of legislation]
Do Crown Patents Have Limiting Powers over Municipal By-laws?
For those who believe the Crown Patents have authority that protects private property despite the fact that the United Nations took over governance of the corporation CANADA in 1985:
The Nullum Tempus Act is a Statute that says that Her Majesty and her servants (governments) cannot make any claims on any property (including forcing the change of use to suit a Plan) from 60 years after she granted the Crown Patent (Land Patent).
A Crown Land Patent Grant was the Crown (Federal/Provincial/ Municipal government) giving up their right, title and interest in a piece of land to an individual or corporation. It then became private property, no longer under the authority or control or power of the Crown. This would have been the case without a Nullum Tempus Act because in 1931, the British divested itself of all land and authority over the provinces.
Most of these grants include the wording “heirs and assigns forever” meaning it can be passed down from generation to generation without the Crown ever being able to interfere with those private property rights again.
Crown Patent advocates see these documents as useful to save a private property owner from imposition by municipalities. A recent challenge to a municipality by a corporation that wanted an end to the municipality’s authority over the trees on its land, failed. The corporation argued that any Municipal Corporation by-law (such as to control trees) allowing entry onto private property or trying to exercise power, authority or control over private property would frustrate the purpose of the Crown Land Patent Grant, making it ultra-vires.
It is beyond the scope of this section to get into that failed Crown Patent case, but it could be it was lost because the individual bringing the matter before the court did not bring it as an individual private property owner, but for some reason incorporated and brought it in the name of the corporation.
Other important property rights cases in Canada:
Lynch v St. John’s (City), 2016 NLCA 35 (CanLII)
“[63] … Having the property rights flowing from a Crown grant, with virtually unrestricted rights to build and to appropriate and use groundwater, transformed to merely a right to keep the land ‘unused in its natural state,’ results in virtually all of the aggregated incidents of ownership being taken away. All of the reasonable uses of the property were taken away and a compulsory taking, a de facto or constructive expropriation, resulted.”
Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518 (1819)
“If the legislature means to claim such an authority, it must be reserved in the grant.”
William Cooper v . The Honourable Alexander Stuart (Colonial Secretary), from the Supreme Court of New South Wales; delivered 3rd April 1889
“[The Crown’s] prospective wants can only be provided for in two ways, either by reserving from settlement portions of land, which may prove to be useless for the purpose for which they are reserved, or by making grants of land in settlement, retaining the right to resume such parts as may be found necessary for the uses of an increased population.”
[note: what the above cases and legislation indicate is that not even the provinces or the Crown have any claims over private property if those claims/rights were not reserved in the Crown Grant Land Patent (Crown Patent).
Conflicts between Federal and Provincial Laws Resolved:
If there is a conflict between municipal by-laws and Provincial laws and regulations, we saw above how by-laws lose.
There is the little matter of ‘federal paramountcy’ in respect of conflict between federal and provincial laws, wherein if a provincial legislation conflicts with a federal legislation, the provincial legislation is ulta vires (of no force or effect).
Here is some case law that shows that federal law (if you believe there is a legitimate federal government) trumps provincial law (and therefore it follows it also trumps municipal laws):
Canadian Western Bank v. Alberta, [2007] 2 SCR 3
“To sum up, the onus is on the party relying on the doctrine of federal paramountcy to demonstrate that the federal and provincial laws are in fact incompatible by establishing either that it is impossible to comply with both laws or that to apply the provincial law would frustrate the purpose of the federal law.”
Reference re Upper Churchill Water Rights Reversion Act, [1984] 1 SCR 297
“Where, however, the pith and substance of the provincial enactment is the derogation from or elimination of extraprovincial rights then, even if it is cloaked in the proper constitutional form, it will be ultra vires. A colourable attempt to preserve the appearance of constitutionality in order to conceal an unconstitutional objective will not save the legislation.”
R. v. Soules, 2011 ONCA 429 (CanLII) par[47]
“[47] Use immunity created by a provincial statute cannot extend to proceedings under the Criminal Code, because it would be ultra vires the province to restrict the admissibility of evidence in criminal matters: White, at para. 35. As Iacobucci J. explains further, in para. 72, the purpose of this type of provincial legislation is not to assist the police in the investigation of specific crimes; rather, ‘[t]he provinces are entitled to inquire into factual circumstances that may involve the commission of a criminal offence, but their jurisdiction does not extend so far as to trench upon the federal power under s. 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867 over the criminal law.’”
If you read Series #3 CONSTITUTION-CHARTER FRAUD, you see that all that case law may not have any weight in the UN-CANADA Region of the World Government, which uses international law and where the UN’s primary goal by 2030 is ending private property ownership.
E-transfer tips within Canada:
ADMIN-PU@proton.me
Municipal Behaviors Violating the Trespass to Property Act of Ontario
Remember that according to s. 9 of the Municipal Act, 2001, the municipal corporation is equivalent in power and authority to a ‘natural person’. And, according to the Income Tax Act, a natural person is an individual man or woman.
If the municipality has the power and authority equal to an individual man or woman, and we presume that it’s true that other individuals do not have the power or authority to be on or do anything to your private property without your consent, there is no reason that any municipality has any lawful or legal right to control private property in Ontario as it does.
You likely know of no individual (natural person) who has the right to come onto your property or to try to intimidate and coerce you into using your property other than in a manner that is satisfactory to you, the rightful private property owner. Yet give an individual a title and office in a municipal organization and suddenly they have greater than the power and authority of a natural person (individual), even though nothing in law allows this expansion of powers over private property.
Trespass to Property Act, RSO 1990, c T.21
Trespass an offence
2 (1) Every person who is not acting under a right or authority conferred by law and who,
(a) without the express permission of the occupier, the proof of which rests on the defendant,
(i) enters on premises when entry is prohibited under this Act, or
(ii) engages in an activity on premises when the activity is prohibited under this Act; or
(b) does not leave the premises immediately after he or she is directed to do so by the occupier of the premises or a person authorized by the occupier,
is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 2 (1); 2016, c. 8, Sched. 6, s. 1.
Colour of right as a defence
(2) It is a defence to a charge under subsection (1) in respect of premises that is land that the person charged reasonably believed that he or she had title to or an interest in the land that entitled him or her to do the act complained of. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 2 (2).
[note: municipalities are corporations and therefore persons as we saw in the preceding reviews of definitions of these terms, so no official or employee of any municipal corporation can ‘reasonably’ believe’ that they had title to or an interest in private property that they did not own as an individual and where their name was not on the property’s title]
Prohibition of entry
3 (1) Entry on premises may be prohibited by notice to that effect and entry is prohibited without any notice on premises,
(a) that is a garden, field or other land that is under cultivation, including a lawn, orchard, vineyard and premises on which trees have been planted and have not attained an average height of more than two metres and woodlots on land used primarily for agricultural purposes; or
(b) that is enclosed in a manner that indicates the occupier’s intention to keep persons off the premises or to keep animals on the premises. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 3 (1).
[note: yet municipal property standards officers routinely enter and destroy gardens, herb patches, lawns when these do not suit the officer’s preferred maintenance and look of such private property, even when told in person or in writing that they are not to enter the premises and that the plants are of value to the owner]
Method of giving notice
5 (1) A notice under this Act may be given,
(a) orally or in writing;
(b) by means of signs posted so that a sign is clearly visible in daylight under normal conditions from the approach to each ordinary point of access to the premises to which it applies; or
(c) by means of the marking system set out in section 7.
It is clear from the wording of the Trespass to Property Act, in concert with the provision in the Municipal Act, 2001 regarding its powers and capacity as a ‘natural person/individual’, that any allowing, with or without a bylaw, of any municipal employee onto private property, particularly after being noticed to not enter the property, is ultra vires and a violation of this Trespass to Property Act by the municipal corporation, just as it would be for any other individual who engaged in such actions on another’s private property.
Let’s look at some more legislation and case law about such municipal corporation ultra vires trespasses that we didn’t mention earlier:
Georgian Bluffs (Township) v. Moyer, 2012 ONCA 700
“[20] The action that ‘should have never occurred’ was an action brought by the Township. The appellant successfully defended himself against the most significant element of the claim advanced by the Township – namely, an order that he remove all objectionable items from his 100-acre property. The appellant also succeeded in having the clean-up costs struck from his property tax bill, in establishing that the Township had trespassed upon his property, and, as we have found, in establishing that the Township had converted chattels he owned.”
1(a) It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist … the following human rights and fundamental freedoms … the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property.
Property and Civil Rights Act, 1990
Rule of decision
1. In all matters of controversy relative to property and civil rights, resort shall be had to the laws of England as they stood on the 15th day of October, 1792, as the rule for the decision of the same, and all matters relative to testimony and legal proof in the investigation of fact and the forms thereof in the courts of Ontario shall be regulated by the rules of evidence established in England, as they existed on that day …
Attorney General v. De Keyser’s Royal Hotel, Ltd., May 10, 1920
“Again it appears to me to be almost inconceivable that the Crown should claim the right to do such things as prostrate fences, take possession of the great industrial works mentioned, or cause any buildings to be destroyed, without being bound at law to compensate the owners therefor.” …
“This is a fundamental principle, going back at least to Magna Carta,” … “Since Magna Carta the estate of a subject in lands or buildings has been protected against the prerogative of the Crown.”
Cook’s Road Maintenance Assoc. v. Crowhill Estates, 2001 CanLII 24149 (ON CA)
“[45] … it is necessary to be mindful of the fact that Cook’s Road is situated on private land. It is privately owned by the appellant. To declare a private road to be a public road will extinguish the property rights of its owner. It is a very serious step, therefore, for a court to declare an individual’s private property to be public property. Property rights are to be respected.”
Municipal Behaviors in Conflict with Common Law
Let’s take a look at a 2012 court of appeal case of 2012 dealing with a municipality that had invaded a private property owner’s privacy.
That 2012 case was heard by Judge Sharpe of the Ontario Court of Appeal barely a decade ago and confirmed that the Common Law Tort of Invasion of Privacy (also referred to as Intrusion Upon Seclusion Or Solitude) is a tort, subject to civil remedy.
Jones v. Tsige, 2012 ONCA 32 concludes:
· one who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns, and
· physical intrusions into private places as well as listening or looking, with or without mechanical aids, into the plaintiff’s private affairs.
Any municipal corporation allowing entry onto private property or trying to exercise power, authority or control over private property, with or without a by-law, would frustrate the purpose of this Common Law Tort, making it ultra-vires (beyond the scope of their powers and authority).
This makes sense, because if municipalities have the power, authority and capacity of a natural person as section 9 of the Municipal Act, 2001 states, then it has no power to do something a private individual can do on or to another individual’s property without their consent.
Yet, by 2014, Ontarians started to see corrupt Judges simply let municipalities off with engaging in such torts – searches without a warrant under the pretext of there being building code violations, taking of private possessions under the pretext of clean yard bylaws … the list is endless by 2025.
Municipal Behaviors are Criminal and Conflict with Criminal Code of Canada
At least two provisions of the Criminal Code make forcible entries, and warrantless searches, as well as ‘inspections by property standards officers’ crimes:
Criminal Code of Canada RSC 1985 [note: the same year the United Nations took over the governance of the Canadian landmass from corporate CANADA]
Forcible Entry and Detainer
Forcible entry
72 (1) A person commits forcible entry when that person enters real property that is in the actual and peaceable possession of another in a manner that is likely to cause a breach of the peace or reasonable apprehension of a breach of the peace.
Matters not material
(1.1) For the purposes of subsection (1), it is immaterial whether or not a person is entitled to enter the real property or whether or not that person has any intention of taking possession of the real property.
Forcible detainer
(2) A person commits forcible detainer when, being in actual possession of real property without colour of right, he detains it in a manner that is likely to cause a breach of the peace or reasonable apprehension of a breach of the peace, against a person who is entitled by law to possession of it.
Questions of law
(3) The questions whether a person is in actual and peaceable possession or is in actual possession without colour of right are questions of law.
Punishment
73 Every person who commits forcible entry or forcible detainer is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Thus, these provisions prevent an individual from forcibly entering property where it can lead to a breach of the peace.
Common nuisance
180 (1) Every person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who commits a common nuisance and by doing so
(a) endangers the lives, safety or health of the public, or
(b) causes physical injury to any person.
Definition
(2) For the purposes of this section, every one commits a common nuisance who does an unlawful act or fails to discharge a legal duty and thereby
(a) endangers the lives, safety, health, property or comfort of the public; or
(b) obstructs the public in the exercise or enjoyment of any right that is common to all the subjects of Her Majesty in Canada.
As we saw, even if a Clean Yards Bylaw or other such invasive municipal actions allow it to trespass, the Criminal Code is a federal law and the bylaw has no effect. Acting on that bylaw involved engaging in a crime and in trespassing on private property. If anything private is taken, that is theft.
These provisions together make it a crime for any municipal corporation to, with or without a by-law, allow entry onto one’s private property or try to exercise power, authority or control over private property. Any such actions are ultra vires the power and authority of the municipal corporation, just as it would be for any ‘natural person’.
When property standards officer enter a property and destroy natural herb plots, gardens, take possession such as building materials or used cars that are valuable to the private property owner, they are doing something a natural person, and therefore the municipality that is deemed to have the capacity and powers of a natural person (individual) cannot do without committing a crime.
— End of Series 1 Part 5 MUNICIPAL FRAUD —
In our next MUNICIPAL FRAUD newsletter, we will examine how immunity protects municipalities and all government bureaucracies in the courts, and how official plans and zoning are being used to deprive owners of their property resulting in constructive theft.
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