Series 1 Part 6: MUNICIPAL FRAUD
‘Good Faith’ Municipal Crimes
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 and Five of our MUNICIPAL FRAUD series.
And now, we continue with our MUNICIPAL FRAUD content. In this 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.
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.
Immunity protects wrong-doers in the courts, municipalities and all government bureaucracies
In Ontario alone there are 249 statutes which make a reference to “good faith”, often in relation to providing statutory immunity to an official in the performance of his or her statutory duty. (That’s mumbo-jumbo providing protection for the criminals doing the crime as ordered.) The following is an example
(Ontario) Municipal Act, 2001 (emphasis added):
448. (1) No proceeding for damages or otherwise shall be commenced against a member of council or an officer, employee or agent of a municipality or a person acting under the instructions of the officer, employee or agent for any act done in good faith in the performance or intended performance of a duty or authority under this Act or a by-law passed under it or for any alleged neglect or default in the performance in good faith of the duty or authority. 2001, c. 25, s. 448 (1).
That sounds as though, even if they violate the Criminal Code, as long as they did it in ‘good faith’, they are immune. This is why many municipal officials have no qualms about committing crimes against private property owners.
This section of the Municipal Act, 2001 creates statutory immunity for individual tortious acts committed by members of council, officers, employees, agents of a municipality or persons acting under instructions of the officer, employee or agent subject to the following conditions:
1. the act must have been performed in good faith; and
2. it must be done in the performance or intended performance of a duty or authority under the Municipal Act or by-law passed under it, or any neglect or default in the performance of such duty or authority.
What criminal or tyrant does not believe they are acting in ‘good faith’, especially when carrying out the dictates of foreign governments, such as the United Nations? Unless the motivation is strictly money, what traitor does not believe they are acting in good faith by aiding and abetting the enemy they are loyal to?
Even when stealing materials off one’s private property all they have to do is say they were intending to perform their duty.
The courts avoid a precise definition of “good faith” – they are to use their discretion and consider the actions in context. That way they can apply statutory immunity, or reasonableness reviews and let ALL torts go unpunished.
Of course, this loophole gives the corrupt Judge the discretion to decide what action was ‘good or bad faith’ and if he too is a Freemason member, he is obligated to use his discretion to let ‘bad faith’ cases slide, or put another way, to see all acts by Freemason brothers as being in ‘good faith’.
““Good faith” has been frequently associated with the concept of honest belief in the appropriateness of the impugned conduct, or applying a standard of reasonableness to the conduct. Or to put it simply: a thing is deemed to be done in good faith if it is done honestly, whether or not it is done negligently. In government decision making where the conduct does not give rise to a private law duty of care, but could nevertheless be subject to judicial review, good faith requires a degree of fairness, openness and impartiality.””
~ Loopstra Nixon LLP resources
As you can see from the following report by John Gamble about the September 16, 2025 East Gwillimbury, Ontario Council meeting, council and city lawyers interpret statutes (law) in whatever way serves their personal agendas best. This municipal government is NOT an outlier…almost all behave illegally the same way.
John Gamble, September 19, 2025 (emphasis added):
“Questions on yesterday’s [September 16, 2025) Municipal council meeting at 6:00 PM.
The town announced through their agenda on last Thursday that they would be holding a statutory meeting on this Tuesday. The unique quality of a statutory meeting is that the public is guaranteed they may stand up without prior notice and make a deposition. I attended that meeting and attempted to make a deposition after waiting three to three and a half hours for the subject of the Integrity Commissioners report to be reviewed. Council indicated that they would have to make an exception to their procedures in order to allow me to make said deposition. Apparently, their position was that the statutory portion of this meeting only applied to the Planning Application.
Question 1: The agenda as published contained no such limitations and one would believe that the entire meeting was to be governed by statutory procedures. Also, at no point during the meeting was there a statement made that the statutory portion of the meeting is now finished.
Question 2: Is it reasonable to accept that a politician with the vast experience our mayor has, could possibly not be aware of the fact that she was in a conflict of interest by voting at meetings in which he had a pecuniary interest. Also worth considering is the fact that the mayor voted for the newest integrity commissioner recommendations which just so happened to include a limit on how far back the integrity Commissioner could investigate.
Question 3: Is it reasonable that the taxpayers of East Gwillimbury should pay for the Integrity Commissioners report and investigation as well as an independent lawyer hired by council to advise them in this matter. I believe that the bills which will be submitted for the Integrity Commissioner or the independent legal advice. will most certainly exceed the 10 day suspension of pay. After all, if you look at our court system if you lose in court generally speaking you pay the costs.
Question 4:
Why would independent legal advice recommend that he would absolutely not advise that a residence deposition be heard on this matter. What are we, chopped liver? It appears the only use for residents is to pay taxes and not interfere with the will of council.
Regrettably the York Region online news published this morning failed to make any mention of the fact that this deputation was not allowed.”
The municipalities have been made lawless by United Nations design and training since 1992, and there is normalization of lawlessness with no recourse for the taxpayer. What these taxpayers do not realize is that this is communism.
Official Plans and Zoning to Deprive Owners of Property
Private property owners are suffering death by the cuts from hundreds of Official Plans that are passed off as law, and by-laws, most if not all of which are ultra vires and unlawful, but rather illegal and criminal concoctions of criminal cabals called municipal service corporations.
Did you know that municipal lawyers are pushing the Official Plans as ‘law’ before the courts when dealing with private property? And that Judges who know better, go along with it all? Mayors and Councils agree to fund these legal attacks on their electorate on the say-so of corporate lawyers.
Did you know that UN-controlled ‘Municipal Planners’ are introducing Zoning Bylaws as part of their Official Plans? Did you know they are imposing them on private property, and are in the process of extinguishing legal non-conforming rights of already-built homes and buildings?
Did you know that municipal corporations are systematically erasing the legal non-conforming rights of properties using bald and knowingly false allegations and force, causing property owners hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to defend against? Our Series 1 MUNICIPAL PLANNER FRAUD will provide details.
Below we show how all this criminality is being done under the colour of law. (Legal dictionary definition of colour of law: color of law n. the appearance of an act being performed based upon legal right or enforcement of statute, when in reality no such right exists.)
These criminal municipal corporations operate as a cabal under the direction of the United Nations (UN), since they are all (444 in total as of 2023 in Ontario) members of a ‘Federation of Canadian Municipalities’ (FCM) which we discuss here.
Municipal Official Plans are a major tool of the UN’s arsenal of weapons and while it is totally illegal to do so, Municipal Planners present Official Plans as though they have the power of ‘law’.
When a municipality creates an Official Plan and adopts it, it becomes a By-law, but they are supposed to be limited to being guides for the development of the municipality in future years, not false laws weaponized against property owners.
Official Plans are not legislation – they are a “plan” – a plan that will affect the operation of the municipal corporation going forward at least 10 years. These plans are to have the approval and consent of a fully-informed public and only once that consent is achieved can Municipal Councillors take the Official Plans and updates before provincial bureaucrats for official approval.
To get that consent, ICLEI training teaches municipal planners how to acquire ‘manufactured consent’ from the affected property owners.
When creating the Official Plan, the municipality must meet certain requirements that are set out in the Planning Act, 1990, Part III. These criteria are never met because the corporate staff tells, coerces and/or manipulates councilors to ignore these requirements. The councilors are quite happy to remain ignorant.
How these Official Plans have been and continue to be misrepresented to the public, and how the Planning staff misleads the public and the courts about what their actual jurisdiction is and what the Municipal Councilors’ limitations of authority and power over private property are, is criminal.
The misrepresentations and abuses of authority, and the weaponization of Official Plans as law, when they are not law and the use of taxpayer-funded lawyers to destroy private property ownership rights is very disturbing, dishonest, and alarming. In Ontario, the level of this criminality is epidemic.
Because of the limited power and authority of Municipal Council as shown earlier, these planning guides known as Official Plans cannot be enforced on private property or any property not ‘acquired’ by the municipality.
But as we will show, they are imposed as ‘law’ because the corporation running things knows they own us and our properties as a result of our being incorporated into their corporation as legal entities called ‘inhabitants’.
For-profit municipalities cannot tolerate the peasants telling their corporations what to do, so the UN concocted the ‘Official Plans’ scheme to arm their future Municipal Planners with a way to preclude debate on such matters as the placement of strict regulations on development and prohibition of uses of private property.
Such measures are well beyond the legal authority of municipalities, just as it is well beyond the legal authority of municipalities to IMPOSE property taxes. But they use mafia-like force to get their way.
Through massively illegal and corrupt means, the corporate staff has wielded Official Plans and Zoning By-laws as weapons, to the point where they deprive private property owners of all use of their property, or cause great loss in the value of an owner’s investment, simply by having a UN-controlled planner baldly allege that a property built decades ago, even a century ago, was built as something different than what it is used as presently!
And by making such false allegations, while still taxing the property as something they claim it isn’t, they violate all the laws and previous court decisions on Legal Non-Conforming rights, and the limitations set by the Municipal Act with regards to private property, and worse, fraudulently convince the courts that Official Plans are law and binding on private property ownership.
This has happened repeatedly in Ontario, because Municipal Officials have abdicated their roles and responsibilities to ensure for-profit service corporations never get to drive private property owners off their properties.
If the use of your property does not conform to the Official Plan, know that the municipality can plan only for what it owns. Here is some case law and the Nullum Tempus Act, which 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).
Two cases in Ottawa show the court refused to force a property owner to change the use of his property to suit the Official Plan.
From The Evolution of Legal non-Conforming Rights (archived here) by Michael Polowin and Elad Gafni, The Digest of Municipal & Planning Law
Introduction: Many, if not most, municipalities across Ontario have provisions in their zoning by-laws that purport to limit repair, renovation or use of buildings that are non-conforming as to use or non-complying as to performance standards. The intent and effect of these by-laws are to “encourage” property owners to bring non-conformity or non-compliance to an end.
Two recent decisions, TDL Group Corp. v. Ottawa (City), 2009 Carswell Ont 7336 (O.M.B.), striking out a portion of the City of Ottawa’s zoning by-law regarding non-conforming rights, and Ottawa (City) v. TDL Group Corp., 2009 Carswell Ont 7168 (Ont. Div. Ct.), which denied the City of Ottawa’s leave to appeal of an order of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB or Board), signifies a clear and unambiguous ruling that municipalities may not limit or coercively bring to an end non-conforming or non-complying rights beyond the narrow constraints permitted by the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 and at common law.
Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER P.13
Excepted lands and buildings
34 (9) No by-law passed under this section applies,
(a) to prevent the use of any land, building or structure for any purpose prohibited by the by-law if such land, building or structure was lawfully used for such purpose on the day of the passing of the by-law, so long as it continues to be used for that purpose; or
(b) to prevent the erection or use for a purpose prohibited by the by-law of any building or structure for which a permit has been issued under subsection 8 (1) of the Building Code Act, 1992, prior to the day of the passing of the by-law, so long as the building or structure when erected is used and continues to be used for the purpose for which it was erected and provided the permit has not been revoked under subsection 8 (10) of that Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, s. 34 (9); 2009, c. 33, Sched. 21, s. 10 (1).
Municipal Act, 2001 (Ontario)
Restriction
99.1 (3) The municipality cannot prohibit or regulate the demolition or conversion of a residential rental property that contains less than six dwelling units. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 40.
To get around having to deal with the public at all, the provincial government has installed MZO (Municipal Zoning Orders) that we discuss later.
Official Plans and Zoning are supposed to be about planning for future infrastructure and improvements to services for public use, and they are supposed to meet certain requirements, including getting consent of the private property owners that the Plans might affect in one way or another.
Official Plans are NOT law but they are presented in the courts as though they are. When a municipality wants to steal your property, it simply says it ‘doesn’t conform’ to our official plans/guide. Thus a ‘guide’ can be used to completely deprive property owners of the use of the property.
The Official Plans and Zoning Bylaws presented to councilors by their senior corporate staff are unlawfully written by UN non-governmental agencies (NGOs), follow UN dictates and mandates and are not what their electorate wants and expects. Planners are trained in manufacturing consent from the public.
Councilors usually don’t even read the Official Plans to realize they were United Nations-designed to be used against private property owners to advance a globalist goal. As we explained previously, Councilors don’t know they don’t have the lawful authority to enforce such ‘plans’ anyway.
However, the UN’s criminal cartels running rough-shod over every Canadian municipality at the behest of the United Nations, won’t even let councilors discuss plans rationally, or at all, with residents.
Michael Polowin, a lawyer with Gowlings, stated that:
“many, if not most official plans across Ontario contain elements that are not consistent with the law, either in the form of decided case law, or on a plain reading of the Planning Act.”
Increasingly, official plans are being used to designate large geographical areas as natural heritage systems, and conservation lands, which includes but is not limited to valley lands, woodlands, wetlands, fish habitat, etc. These areas include private property, usually farms.
Michael Polowin wrote in his legal report titled ‘Official, but illegal: Are Official Plans being used in a manner that is a “bridge too far?”,
“A lot of times, municipalities will say ‘we have to conform with the official plan. No, you don’t. You can call it official, but it’s not legal.”
Time and again, private property owners, particularly in Ontario, are put through punishing legal processes called ‘litigation’, where municipalities with deep pockets will continue to deprive an owner of their property by alleging that the property failed to meet the criteria of the official plans.
For example, in one Ontario case we are aware of and that will be shared on another Substack, the Ontario municipal planner falsely alleged in 2011 that a 110 year old semi-detached with 2 units in each house had been built as a single-family dwelling and was not allowed the apartments!
While making such false statements, the city had in hand historical documents, such as a 1976 Assessment roll showing 2 separate residences and 2 apartments in each residence/house, taxed separately. Of course it withheld this document. Other such documents going back to the 60s and very early 1970s showed the same facts. Years later the testimony and report of a forensic structural engineer who proved with physical evidence that the place was built as a semi-detached with each side having 2 independent apartments/dwelling units, was disregarded by a corrupt Judge.
We understand that the law firm in question has stated that the city has incurred almost $1 million to deprive the owner of all use of their property for a decade and one half already.
An official plan can be a useful and necessary tool for municipalities to plan for their future development and growth – at least that’s the pretext for having entire departments set up around these works of fiction that amount to the UN’s wet-dream for our properties.
An Official Plan is NOT law, but merely a statement of future intention in the area of land management. The plan is a statement of objectives and policy, designed to guide the City’s land use decision-makers. Land use rights depend on the zoning, not the official plan.
E-transfer tips within Canada:
ADMIN-PU@proton.me
Provincial Policy Statement Ignored
Section 3 of the Planning Act of Ontario provides that the Official Plan must comply with the Provincial Policy Statement. For the Official Plan to comply, Municipal Council must KNOW and understand what the Provincial Policy Statement states, and that requires that they read it!
The Provincial Policy Statement is very important because it clarifies quite clearly what LANDS within the municipality would fall under the Official Plan of any municipality.
If they bothered to read the Provincial Policy Statement, Municipal Councils would know exactly what lands within their municipality they can plan for future development of because the Official Plans are about “improving the infrastructure”. That is, about providing better services for public use, and not about taking over private property.
As shown in previous sections, municipalities can only regulate (through bylaw) lands the municipality has already acquired as a public asset!
Again, this limitation is ignored because they know something we don’t know – and they know the courts would ignore all references to the property owner being incorporated without their knowledge. Most lawyers either don’t know or refuse to rock the boat by using the definitions and provisions of superior law we have discussed already.
The corporate CAO’s and Municipal Planners are aware of all this, because they operate under a different set of directives and laws, that is, they operate under the United Nations Municipal Primer, 1994.
The UN’s Primer requires the officials to promote and implement the globalist agenda and not the domestic agenda.
If corporate staff are innocently ignoring these jurisdictional limitations on their authority to regulate and plan for private property, they are wholly incompetent and must be fired.
If they are deliberately misadvising councilors about the law and councilor authority limitations, these municipal corporation staffers are engaged in crimes, must be removed, prosecuted for their crimes and see jail time.
PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT: Legislative Authority:
“The Provincial Policy Statement is issued under the authority of section 3 of the Planning Act and came into effect on May 1, 2020. In respect of the exercise of any authority that affects a planning matter, section 3 of the Planning Act requires that decisions affecting planning matters “shall be consistent with” policy statements issued under the Act.”
The Legislative Authority of the Planning Act that municipalities must comply with require councilors to be “consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement” when creating their Official Plans and Zoning Bylaws.
Preamble of Provincial Policy Statement states:
“The Provincial Policy Statement provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development.”
What are “matters of provincial interest”?
Section 1.1, Planning Act of Ontario, explains the purpose of the Planning Act [bolded for emphasis]:
(a) to promote sustainable economic development in a healthy natural environment within the policy and by the means provided under this Act;
(b) to provide for a land use planning system led by provincial policy;
(c) to integrate matters of provincial interest in provincial and municipal planning decisions;
(d) to provide for planning processes that are fair by making them open, accessible, timely and efficient;
(e) to encourage co-operation and coordination among various interests;
(f) to recognize the decision-making authority and accountability of municipal councils in planning.
Clearly, the Planning Act directs municipal planning on LANDS belonging to the province or the municipality. There is nothing that refers to private property.
We see our property as ‘private’, but the corporations controlling our geographic areas know that because we were fraudulently incorporated without or knowledge or consent into their corporate scheme, our lands are theirs to regulate as a private corporate asset so long as we unwittingly comply.
Since municipalities are purportedly bound to work under the authority of the Planning Act, 1990 (as well as the Municipal Act, 2001) their officials need to look at the definitions in the Planning Act.
Section 2 of the Planning Act, 1990 defines what “matters of provincial interest are” and this definition is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.
Provincial interest
2 The Minister, the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board and the Tribunal, in carrying out their responsibilities under this Act, shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest such as,
(a) the protection of ecological systems, including natural areas, features and functions;
(b) the protection of the agricultural resources of the Province;
(c) the conservation and management of natural resources and the mineral resource base;
(d) the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest;
(e) the supply, efficient use and conservation of energy and water;
(f) the adequate provision and efficient use of communication, transportation, sewage and water services and waste management systems;
(g) the minimization of waste;
(h) the orderly development of safe and healthy communities;
(h.1) the accessibility for persons with disabilities to all facilities, services and matters to which this Act applies;
(i) the adequate provision and distribution of educational, health, social, cultural and recreational facilities;
(j) the adequate provision of a full range of housing, including affordable housing;
(k) the adequate provision of employment opportunities;
(l) the protection of the financial and economic well-being of the Province and its municipalities;
(m) the co-ordination of planning activities of public bodies;
(n) the resolution of planning conflicts involving public and private interests;
(o) the protection of public health and safety;
(p) the appropriate location of growth and development;
(q) the promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable, to support public transit and to be oriented to pedestrians;
(r) the promotion of built form that,
(i) is well-designed,
(ii) encourages a sense of place, and
(iii) provides for public spaces that are of high quality, safe, accessible, attractive and vibrant;
(s) the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and adaptation to a changing climate.
Do you see anything in the definition of ‘provincial interest’ that refers to private property?
Do you notice the imposition of the UNs agenda to carbon tax us, and to force ‘adaption’ to thwart non-existent climate change, such as going all electric?
Do you not think that ‘encouraging a sense of place’ is over-reach, since manipulating people to feel this way or that is not their mandate? But this allows the UN’s LGBTQP+++ cult to impose its demands on the rest of the population, so that nudity, immoral and lewd acts, especially in front of children can be legalized and the streets and sidewalks can be painted colours of their choice.
Again, PRIVATE PROPERTY IS NOT LISTED AS “MATTERS OF PROVINCIAL INTEREST” IN THE DEFINITION OF ‘PROVINCIAL MATTERS’ IN THE PLANNING ACT, BECAUSE THEY CAN ONLY PLAN FOR PROPERTY THEY OWN AND CONTROL.
**But it bears repeating what you don’t realize: the corporations know that the definition of municipality in the Municipal Act, 2001, is, per Section 1(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, Definitions:
“municipality” means a geographic area whose inhabitants are incorporated;
It is therefore very clear that the municipal councilors and the corporate services departments of the municipalities in Ontario are engaged in unlawful acts, including crimes against private property owners.
Would you like to see an example and proof of the fraudulent “incorporation” of “inhabitants”, which was done without the knowledge or agreement of the so-called inhabitants? Below are excerpts from the The Regional Municipality of Peel Act, 1973 (Ontario), which stated that:
the inhabitants of the Regional Area are hereby constituted a body corporate under the name of “The Regional Municipality of Peel”.
Notice in the next screenshot how the powers of the “incorporated inhabitants” were fraudulently assigned to the Regional Council, and that according to the legislation (emphasis added):
the by-laws passed by the Regional Council in the exercise of any of its powers and in good faith shall not be open to unreasonable question, or be quashed, set aside or declared invalid either wholly or partly, on account of the unreasonableness or supposed unreasonableness of its provisions or any of them.”
The consequence is that they simply break the law after ‘incorporating’ us because our property can never be ‘private property’ as long as we belong to the corporation (without realizing it of course).
Section 14.7 of the Planning Act of Ontario:
“If LAND in a municipal planning area is covered by an Official Plan, the parts of the official plan that affect land in the municipal planning area, will be the Official Plan under the municipal planning authority.”
** Note: Municipal planning areas are lands already owned or acquired by the Province or Municipality such as Crown, provincial and municipal lands, including parks, in the Greenbelt Plan, Niagara Escarpment Plan, Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan.
Section 16 of the Planning Act of Ontario states that an official plan shall have goals, objectives and policies established “to manage and direct physical change and the effects on the social, economic, built and natural environment of the municipality”.
“Manage” means WHERE the corporation masquerading as local municipal government has been granted the authority to control and manage public assets belonging to the municipality such as garbage dumps, parks and recreation, etc.
Municipalities, which are now private for-profit, unaccountable corporations through the UN’s 2-step privatization dance, have never been given authority or power to manage and control private property, as we saw above. The law does not apply to private corporations.
***We remind you however, of the trick stated as a ‘definition’ of municipality: Section 1(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, Definitions:
“municipality” means a geographic area whose inhabitants are incorporated;
Therefore, once incorporated, you and your possessions belong to the corporation! But because this was done fraudulently, it has no force or effect unless you allow it to.
Section 58 of the Planning Act of Ontario refers to the Acquisition of Land and states (emphasis added):
“The Municipal Act 2001 or the City of Toronto Act 2006, as the case may be, applies to the acquisition of land under this Act.
The “Acquisition of Land” means -- referring to the Municipal Act, section 11, subsection (2), Part 4 -- that AFTER the municipality has acquired such land, it then becomes a municipal public asset and only then do they have the power to exercise their authority and to “plan” for it.
*** Private property IS NOT a “public asset”. But the corporations ‘acquired’ private lands when they incorporated the property owner and his/her possessions and land into their now private business, without our knowledge or consent.
This is why we keep believing that private property is private and not public asset owned by the corporation – we didn’t know about having been ‘incorporated’. If we were not incorporated, none of this could happen. By incorporating us fraudulently (without our consent) they continue building on the fraud by imposing their will on our private properties.
Again, the law is clear, private property is not a public asset and jurisdiction to regulate private property does not exist.
For-profit municipal corporations have used lawyers to hide this truth, to use lawfare and brute force to take over private lands, and to run a municipality as though ALL lands are public and ‘owned’ by the municipality’s corporate cabal.
~ The crime of property theft and extortion started with the ‘incorporation’ of inhabitants and their possessions to create the private corporation called ‘municipality’.
The legislation provided earlier proves that municipalities DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY to enforce bylaws or regulation on private property, unless they have acquired that property with the consent of the property owner to make it a “public asset’.
IF you didn’t know your property was being acquired by the municipality through subterfuge, then it did not acquire your property with your consent.
It has been promoted by some landowner groups that the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) dealt two blows to over-stepping municipalities with respect to private property rights. But those case decisions too were just a pacifier that was never intended to have teeth because the municipality was created by stealthily forcing all properties and their owners to be ‘incorporated’ into the corporation.
(In a future series on LEGAL FRAUD, we will show how the SCC is more corrupt than all the other courts combined, because it perpetuates the lie about Canada being ‘confederated’ and that a Charter exists or that it could have authority over men and women.)
In two recent cases before the SCC, the municipality appeared to have LOST because they overstepped their authority by interfering with the property owners’ ability to develop their properties and attempted to regulate property that does not belong to them:
Annapolis Group Inc. v. Halifax Regional Municipality, 2022 SCC 36 (CanLII)
City of St. John’s v. Wallace Lynch, et al., 2023 CanLII 19752 (SCC).
Both these cases were in Eastern Canada, where the abuse of private property owners has increased, not decreased, since these two misleading cases.
NOTICE how not once did the case decision or the lawyers arguing the case mention the fact that the property owner involved was ‘incorporated’ into the corporation as a corporate asset without their knowledge.
Private property Constructively Stolen
In Ontario ALL legislation, case decisions and provincial policy directions and even legal non-conforming laws have been ignored by corrupt courts and even more corrupt lawyers working to protect corporate planning staff as they take constructive possession of what we thought all along was private property.
Here’s what ‘constructive’ means and some examples:
This special document describes Constructive Theft by Lawfare and Zoning.
An example of the Constructive expropriation loss of use in a Supreme Court of Canada case known as St. John’s (City) v. Lynch, is here.
Another ‘constructive’ example:
Private property owners, one after another, are deprived of all use of their properties, through unlawful by-laws, lawfare, frauds on the court, and by ignoring 100 years of legal-non-conforming property rights and superior legislation.
Would you believe that a bank takes constructive possession of your ‘person’ (the legal entity created using your given/birth name)?
— End of Series 1 Part 6 MUNICIPAL FRAUD —
In our next MUNICIPAL FRAUD newsletter, we will look at the following topics:
Legal Non-Conforming Rights Extinguished by Corrupt Judges and Lawyers Using Official Plans,
Organized Criminal Gangs (OCG) / United Nations now Running Municipalities,
SMART City Hell, 15-minute city prisons.
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