Bruce the Blight

I have over the last three months completed extensive research into the Law with respect to private property in Canada/Ontario.

I did this as a result of my problems with the MTO at Duffy’s in Hepworth.


Re: 520 Bruce Street Holdings Inc. vs MTO

With respect to the MTO claim of Jurisdiction pursuant to the Highway Improvement Act, I offer the following as a rebuttal to support my position that in fact they do not have any Jurisdiction.

A. Crown Patent

The Letters Patent issued with respect to the property at 520 Bruce Street was issued on October 13, 1868, by the Dominion of Canada.
The Patent itself, grants title to the heirs, assigns and successors in title Forever.

B. The Quebec Act, 1774

“Section III. Provided always, and be it enacted, that nothing in this act contained shall extend, or be construed to extend, to make void, or to vary or alter any right Title or Possession, derived under any Grant, Conveyance, or otherwise now so ever, of to any lands within the said Province, or the Provinces thereto adjoining: but the same shall remain and be in Force, and have effect. As it this Act had never been made.”

“IX. Provided always, that nothing in this Act contained shall extend, or be construed to extend to any lands that have been granted by hi Majesty, or shall hereafter be granted by his Majesty, his heirs and Successors, to be Holden in free and common Soccage.”

Through this Act the Province of Quebec was to be divided into two Provinces and the laws involving Property and civil rights were to be those in the nature of England’s . This was in fact accomplished with the Constitution Act in 1792.

C. The Constitution Act 1792

This Constitution was created to divide Canada into 2 separate provinces, Upper and Lower Canada and introduced English law pertaining to “property and civil rights”.

“(18) English law was received into the Province of Ontario in 1792 through An Act Making More Effectual Provision for the Government of the Province of Quebec in North America and to introduce the English Law as the Rule of Decision in all Matters of Controversy, Relative to Property and Civil Rights.

**(19) Stats. Upp. Can. 1792 (32 Geo.III), c.1 (“the 1792 Act). The explicit intent of the 1792 Act was to incorporate into Ontario Law, the Laws of England in relation to property and civil rights.
**Ontario Supreme Court, Polewsky v. Home Hardware Stores Ltd., Date 1999-10-12
This also supports the granted and patented private property rights under section nine of the act:

IX. Provided always, that nothing in this Act contained shall extend, or be construed to extend, to any lands that have been granted by His Majesty. Or shall hereafter be granted by his Majesty, his heirs and successors, to be holden in free and common soccage. ***

*** free and common socage (Blacks Law Dictionary, 9th Edition, 2009, p. 1517)
Freehold Tenure is without any incidents or obligations for the benefit of the Crown. All lands granted by the Crown in fee simple are granted in free and common socage- freehold tenure.

A fee simple may be transferred without license or fine and the new owner holds from the Crown in the same manner as the previous tenant held from the Crown.”

D. The British North American Act, 1867

The Preamble of the BNA it expresses that our constitution and our country is to have a constitution “similar in Principal to that of the United Kingdom”. To have a full understanding of this document and it implications, one must consider the Magana Carta, the Petition of Rights 1628, the Statute of Monopolies 1623, the Abolition of the Star Chamber Act 1641, the Act for the Limitations of Forest 1641, the Bill of Rights 1689-90, the Coronation Oath Act 1689-90, the Settlement Act 1689-90, the Nullum Act 1769. Suffice to say there is only to be common law between the citizens and the government, therefore the federal government is to be the supreme legislator, whereas the province is to legislate for only what belongs to it.

The BNA Section 12 “All Powers, Authorities and functions which under any Act of Parliament of Great Britain, or of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland or of the Legislature of Upper Canada, Lower Canada, Canada, Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, are at the Union vested in…
The concept of the Union or amalgamation under one superior corporate entity is in fact expressed in the preamble of the BNA.

Since the Provinces is in fact a corporation, one must look to the meaning of provincial property.

Section 109. All lands, mines, minerals and Royalties belonging to the several Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick at the union and all sums then due or payable for such lands , mines minerals or Royalties, shall belong to the several Provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick in which the same are situate or arise, subject to any Trusts existing in respect thereof, and to any interest other than that of the Province in the same.

Section 109 clearly states that the Provinces own the revenue that can be created from public/Crown lands being sold or used to create revenue from the mines and minerals that are reserved in the land patents. Private property is addressed under “subject to any trusts existing in respect thereof and to any interest other than that of the Province in the same.”

The Draft BNA was created at the Quebec Conference in 1864. In the draft was the instruction and the intent of section 109.

56. All lands, mines, minerals and Royalties vested in Her Majesty in the Provinces of Upper Canada, Lower Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Price Edward Island, for the use of such Provinces, shall belong to the Local Government of the Territory in which the same are situate; subject to any trusts that may exist in respect to any of such lands or to any interest other of other persons of the same.

This in fact means that the Province cannot interfere with any other persons “interest” and/or any ”trusts” not of the Province.

“The Queen in right of Ontario has no right, title or interest in and to lands described” (Ontario (Attorney General) v Roundtree Beach Assn., 1994). The Queen/Crown has removed the crown domain through letters patent, ergo there is no authority to be transferred to the Province.

Section 117 “The several provinces shall retain all their respective Public Property not otherwise disposed of in this Act, subject to the Right of Canada to assume any lands or Public Property required for Fortifications or for the Defense of the Country.”

In the case of A.G. v. DeKeyer’s Royal Hotel, 1920, p. 28 it is stated “ Since the Magna Carta the estate of a subject in lands or buildings has been protected against the prerogative of the Crown.”There were provisions that “private Property” could only be used or regulated with fair compensation being paid, even during times of war.

Since Section 125 of the Act says that federal property and provincial property are exempt from taxation it stands to reason that if we pay taxes on the land we must be owners of the land ergo we must be owners of private property.

The BNA Section 12 “All Powers, Authorities and functions which under any Act of Parliament of Great Britain, or of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland or of the Legislature of Upper Canada, Lower Canada, Canada, Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, are at the Union vested in…

E. The Planning Act

Section 3, of the Planning Act, the Provincial Policy Statement is enacted.
The Provincial Policy Statement provides policy and direction on matters of
“provincial interest related to land use, planning and development.” Provincial Interests only involve what belongs to the Province as a “quasi corporation” and does not involve the private right, title or interest established in private property.

The Province was created by letters Patent. As such, it may create laws like any other corporation and govern its own constitution. This in fact is verified under the BNA, 1867 under “executive power” which is the same as any other corporation. When something is “in the province” it means that it is something that is owned or belongs to, or is the property of the Province.

Private Property is not “in” or does not belong to the Dominion or the Province.

Point in fact from the Mercer case Provincial Property is as follows (Mercer v. A.G Ont. 1883, Privy Council)

“What lands, mines, minerals and Royalties can with propriety, having regard to the manner in which those works have been used in other legislative language above quotes, be said to have belonged to the several Provinces if Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick at the Union? None at all, it is plain, in any other sense than that the revenues arising from such properties belonging to the Crown had been made part of the consolidated funds of the old Province now constituting the Dominion of Canada, for the public uses of these Provinces. The “Lands” which had been already granted by the Crown and were at the time of the Union vested in the grantees thereof, or their heirs or assigns, cannot with any degree of propriety be said to have been lands “belonging to the several provinces of &c., &c. at the time of the Union,…”and within the limits of which the province the property now in question is situate, declared by 12 Vic., c. 31, that the term “public lands” in the Province, which is but an equivalent expression to “lands belonging to the provinces at the Union” did not comprehend only the ungranted lands accruing to the Crown by escheat or forfeiture, and that they did comprehend only the ungranted lands of the Crown in the province, in which sense they have ever since been understood. These waste ungranted lands of the Crown, the revenues derived from which constituted part of the consolidated funds of the provinces before the Union, were, as we know, appropriated the public uses of (Page 707) the provinces ; but the lands so appropriated did not constitute all the ungranted lands of the Crown in the provinces. There were other lands of the Crown, the monies arising from the sale or other disposition of which did not form part of such consolidated funds; these lands were set apart and appropriated for the actual residence thereon and occupation thereof by certain Indian Tribes by whom they were surrendered to and became vested in the Crown, and other were surrendered by the Indians to and vested in the Crown for the purpose of being granted by the Crown and that the monies arising there from should be applies for the benefit of the Indians. These lands are by item 24 of sec. 91 , placed under the control of the Dominion Parliament. The custom in the grants by the Crown of these lands was the same as in the grants of all other Crown lands, namely, to reserve all mines and minerals, but the reservation thereof would accrue, as was provided with respect to the monies arising from the sale of the lands, to the benefit of the Indians for whose benefit the lands were set apart; such mines and minerals, or the royalties accruing from the disposition thereof, could not have been appropriated to the public uses of the provinces, the “lands” therefore which are referred to in sec. 109 of the British North American Act can only be construed to mean those ungranted or public lands belonging to the Crown within the several provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, the revenues derived from which before and at the Union effected by the British North American Act had been surrendered by the Crown and made part of the consolidated funds of the provinces; and the words “mines, minerals and royalties”being in the same 109th sec. added the word and” this latter word must there be construed in a limited sense, that is to say, as exclusive of the “mines and minerals”.

To further support that the MTO has no authority to regulate, control and or license the property at 520 Bruce Street, I argue that section 92 of the British North American Act 1867 (BNA), the province has authority to tax directly, and in having that authority it transfers that authority to the municipality and it is collecting that tax as a revenue source for both the municipality and the province .

Severn v. The Queen (2 Can. S. C. 77) Strong, J Held:– “That, the Legislature of the Province of Ontario has no authority to raise a revenue from brewers by requirering them to take out licenses to carry on their business and dispose of their beer within the Province . ( Over ruling Regina v. Taylor, 36 U. C., Q. B., p. 201) The Chief Justice Richards said: That under the BNA Act of 1867, the power to regulate Trade and Commerce rests exclusively with the Dominion Parliament, as also the right to raise money by the mode of indirect taxation, except so far as the same maybe expressly given to the Provincial Legislatures. That, making it necessary to take out and pay for a license to sell, by wholesale or retail, spirituous. Fermented or other manufactured liquors, is raising money by the indirect mode of taxation. That, all authority given to Provincial Legislatures to exercise the power of raising money by indirect mode of taxation is contained in Sec. 92 of the BNA Act, which gives power to legislate on the subject of: s.s. 8 Municipal institutions in the Province; s.s. 9 Shop, saloon, tavern, auctioneer and other licenses in order to raising revenue for Provincial, local or municipal purposes . That it was not intended by the words “other licenses” to enlarge the powers referred to beyond shop, saloon, and tavern licenses, in the direction if licenses to effect the general purposes of trade and commerce and the levying of indirect taxes, but rather to limit them to the licenses which might be required for objects which were purely municipal or local in their character… I consider the power, now claimed, to interfere with the paramount authority of the Dominion Parliament in matters of trade and commerce and indirect taxation; and so pregnant with evil, and so contrary to what appears to me to be the manifest intention of the framers of the BNA Act, that I cannot come to the conclusion that it is conferred by the language cited as giving that power. By the interpretation I give to the words “and other licenses” limiting them to the other licenses which are local and municipal in character, and giving full force to the words, shop, saloon, tavern and auctioneer licenses, I think I carry out the intention of the BNA Act and make all the powers harmonized.

In a nut shell, the Province and the municipal corporations are only to license shops, taverns, saloons and auctioneers, not to create massive regulations to circumvent their own restriction on indirect taxation. It seems they do not have authority to expand this to permits to do things on private property for land use, access, signage etc. to the point that they interfere with the operation of businesses.

92. (3) of the BNA does give authority to the Province over its own property. 92. (16) is merely all things local and private in nature in the Province. It has been argued that the aforementioned sections are the provincial governments ability to implement what is referred to as “good government” , however the ability to implement “good government” was in fact removed under the BNA and as a subsequent the province has no authority to implement criteria pertaining to authority under the disguise of “good government”. The Province has no authority over private property and cannot transfer authority to any other entity , be that corporations, counties, municipal corporations etc. as the Crown alienated it authority and something that has been alienated cannot be transferred twice to two different parties.

The Constitution Act, 1930 spelled out what the Provinces were entitled to for property. The property transferred at the time of the Union was the property that the provinces had authority to legislate for. In the 1930 Constitution it stated that under section 30 of the Manitoba Act, 1870 “it was provided that all ungranted or waste lands in the Province should be vested in the Crown and administered by the Government of Canada for the purposes of the Dominion, subject to the conditions and stipulations contained in the agreement for the surrender of Ruperts Land by the Hudson Bay Company to her Majesty: And: ‘… a transfer would be made by Canada to the Province Subject to any trust existing in respect thereof and without prejudice to any interest other than that of the Crown in the same…”

The transfer of the Public Lands had restrictions on the Province expressing what they did and did not have “legislative authority” over. The Provinces are to honor each contract, in regards to past patents and they were to administer for future grants/patents. But only at the time of issuance. When the future grants /patents, issued by the Province were created, the legislation applied to those grants/patents were to be consistent.

There is nothing in the 1840 Act of Union which grants the Province any authority over private property.

Pursuant to the Baldwin Act of 1849-1850, (the foundation to the Municipal Act) a private statute cannot affect the rights of any other person or any body politic.

Any legislation, any bylaw prescribing a land use condition, which is not reserved in the letters patent at the time of issuance is an expropriation and as such is subject to consideration pursuant to the Expropriations Act.

The forced demands by the Province must be considered beyond their authority, as the Province, or the Crown do not have any right, title or interest in private property ergo, it cannot demand that private property is subject to regulations that in fact infringe on the right of utility of the property.

Our elected officials are not aware of the legislation I have quoted here and are being guided by Civil Servants that do not know the law and as a result, bylaws are being created and enforced without any respect for the rights we have.

Folks are being forced through ignorance to pay fines and give up rights and property through laws that are not enforceable  in law.

The MNR, Niagara Escarpment Commission and MTO, play a game of bluff and most of you are suckered by their bullshit!

Our rights as property owners are clear and have been, through case law cited here, verified and confirmed. If you let them get away with this nonsense you deserve what ever you get!!!

Stop being sheep, your government is ten time a bigger threat than any land claims made by the Aboriginals!!!

Fascism is what it is no matter how you pretend!