Monday, April 16, 2012

Ontario Landowner Association should abandon Crown Land Patent argument

As a layman in law I have always found the Ontario Landowner Association’s argument that Crown Land Patents protected property rights from legislation to be appealing. Not appealing as in I thought the argument was right, but appealing in the sense that I hoped they were right. Unfortunately when you hear the entire legal profession dismiss the idea it is probably time to find a new argument.

This is the point that Randy Hillier was likely trying to make when you publicly disagreed with the OLA (which he founded) and said that its arguments regarding the Crown Land Patent has no basis in fact.

Dear friends in the Landowners;

There has been much written and said regarding Crown Land Patents, but most, if not all, that you have heard is either false or misleading. As the founding President of both the Lanark and Ontario Landowners, I feel I have an obligation to caution you regarding much of the information that is out there, and provide you with some facts and informed positions on Crown Patents.

Below are three informed, factual accounts of Crown Patents from respected people.

- Randy Hillier

Even liberty loving lawyers such as Karen Selick doesn’t think that the OLA has a leg to stand on:

Just stumbled upon this today, Randy. You are correct, and the Landowners are wearing blinkers regarding this issue. In fact, it is rather alarming to see their dogged determination in the face of convincing legal opinion.

I've given them the same opinion repeatedly and have found that my words just fall on deaf ears.

I’ve invited them to show me these convincing cases they claim to have uncovered. On one occasion they sent me a few examples of cases mentioning land patents, but they seemed incapable of grasping that those cases failed to prove their point.

Regards,
Karen

--------------------------------------
Karen Selick | Litigation Director.
Canadian Constitution Foundation.
Suite 320 | 110 North Front St., Bldg A3 | Belleville | ON | K8P 0A6.

I think the OLA has a positive role in advocating for property rights, but if they want to be taken seriously they should be making serious arguments. The President of the OLA appears to be ignoring this good advice:

It is with great sadness that I respond to a letter that was sent to the Ontario Landowners Association (OLA) members on Sunday, March 11, 2012. In this letter, Randy Hillier MPP for Lanark, Frontenac, Lennox and Addington and one of the original founders of the OLA informed the membership that he no longer supports the direction of the OLA and specifically our quest to discover the value of the Land Patent/Crown Grants as per our property rights.

Sticking to a losing argument is the best way to discredit your position. This is especially annoying when there are other perfectly good arguments and solutions that they can be offering. Pushing to have property rights included in the constitution as Randy Hillier is doing is one example.

6 comments:

bigcitylib said...

Losing and costly, when the argument loses in court. And I think there is already one instance where it has.

Nick. said...

"...Even liberty loving lawyers such as Karen Selick doesn’t think that the OLA has a leg to stand on:

Just stumbled upon this today, Randy. You are correct, and the Landowners are wearing blinkers regarding this issue. In fact, it is rather alarming to see their dogged determination in the face of convincing legal opinion.

I've given them the same opinion repeatedly and have found that my words just fall on deaf ears.

I’ve invited them to show me these convincing cases they claim to have uncovered. On one occasion they sent me a few examples of cases mentioning land patents, but they seemed incapable of grasping that those cases failed to prove their point.

Regards,
Karen..."

Karen.

With all due respect, Randy and all who hold his position, are the ones in error. You say that you have asked repeatedly for the cases that support the land grants. Fair enough. There are many, but why not start with this case from 1951. commonly referred to as the "Huggard" case. It is by no means the only one, but it is a good start. If this isn't enough just let me know and I can provide much more reading on the topic if you require. Email me at nickatnight@cfra.com

http://scc.lexum.org/en/1951/1951scr0-427/1951scr0-427.html

Karen Selick said...

This isn't enough. Where are the others?

This one squeaked through because the reservation was held to be "void for vagueness" but you people are trying to parlay this into something it's not. It doesn't give people the right to say that laws of general application don't apply.

Anonymous said...

What or who authorizes the government to unilaterally change the contract? I hear the naysayers saying nay, but don't hear their reasoning....

Niagara Lanowners Association said...

There seems to be some confusion, in regards to the Letters Patents/Crown Grants which should be cleared up. The titled paper has expressed that “there are limits to the legal rights” of a patentee/grantee and it is correct, but these rights and responsibilities are covered under Common Law. Common Law is to be the only “Law” between the government and the citizens. This has been supported, not only by Supreme Court rulings, but also a Professor of Law, in 2009.

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=287622767990307

Anonymous said...

If you argue in an admiralty court that which is a common law issue (Crown Land Patent), of course the court will not recognize it. It is out of its jurisdiction and not being a court of competent jurisdiction to make a decision.