Rural Issues 2012

March 27, 2012 |


  • In Grey Bruce, a man who’s municipality decided that this garage/shed didn’t conform to their property standards bylaw , demolished it and removed it without consent from the owner.
  • A landowner in Port Colborne has been parking his dump truck for 27 years on his property was told he has to pay a $6,000 fee to have his property rezoned and then pay an annual commercial property tax.
  • Prompted by an anonymous complaint, a rural citizen received a bylaw visit at a cost of $177.  The bylaw said that the heavy undergrowth shall be eliminated from the yard as to be consistent with the surrounding environment.  Which in this case,  was bush.  Someone had to trespass into her backyard in order to view the supposed undergrowth.  Bylaw ordered her to cut it, or the municipality would cut it and send her the bill.
  • Charges of mischief were laid against a land owner due to a peaceful protest that blocked the offices of Horton Township.  Their crime was to argue that a municipality and a province can demand that waste from their farm be stored 1000 feet away from their home, however, said same municipality/province can then construct a waste storage facility 125 feet from the same home.
  • The city of Markham is trying to legislate 4500 acres of private land, mostly from farmers, with a proposed “white belt” that will prevent the sale of lands, creation of severances or any development under the guise of environmental protection.
  • A farm in Grimsby was suddenly designated residential and the property taxes were raised from $1500 to$7000 per year even though he was still farming.  This 73 year old mand called every level of government without success.  He finally lost his battle to cancer.
  • The MNR insisted on levying a fine on someone of $1000 for disposing of a ram he did not own.  It was a stray , he fed it, but he never owned it.  When it died, de does not know what happened to it.
  • A land owner is in Ontario Superior Court using the Land Patent Grands to Defend his property agains the NEC (Niagara Escarpment Commission).  The land in Niagara is not suitable for agriculture and was converted to an archery through the planting of trees, yet the MNR is trying to enforce a land zoning for tender fruit, even though the land cannot be farmed.
  • The Biosphere Conservancy Group was been very active in trying to extend World Biosphere Designation on mountainous private property in Niagara.
  • A full time resident in cottage country shared a well with some other part time cottage owners.  It was therefore deemed to be a public drinking source.  As a result, the Ministry would often come by, test the water and dump chemicals including chlorine in it without consent. He decided to put in his own well and they said that would be fracturing and if he did not go along with them, they would make life difficult at the septic survey phase.  The trigger for this harassment was a complaint against two farmers who watered their cattle at the lake for 100s of years.   They built fences and dug watering holes.
  • A family in Bainsville is still facing the prospect of massive land-use restrictions after the Ministry of the Environment decided that 200 acres of their crop land is in a source protection zone and continued agriculture use would constitute a hazard by virtue of the Clean Water Act.   The rub, – closer to the well sits: A four land highway, a CN mainline track and a Township road.
  • The Rideau Valley Conservation Authority charged a resident of Ottawa because they did not like the temporary walking bridge that he placed across a low spot on his property.  The landowner had spoken to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans who agreed that the bridge posed no danger to the fish habitat which he had created some years ago with the blessing of the MNR.
  • A 60 year old unmaintained road that neighbouring farmers have used for farm equipment travel was likely converted into a walking bike trail to nowhere due to a decision by the Dundas County Council.  This dirt road went through a 185 acre private farm.
  • A landowner has had a problem with the Town of Iroquois for 11 years.  The snow plow blasted through a road for their private property; it damaged a fence line, breaking posts and wire.  The city refused to fix it, the land owner closed the road.   The OPP intervened and threatened the land owner with jail.  They charged him with closing a common road under the Road Access Act, Section 2(2).  Ownership of the property was not addressed in the Act, but common road is defined as an access road for which public money has been expended for its repair or maintenance.  The City finally reversed its direction and argued that it was a highway, not an access road, so the charges were dropped.  The Act can be used to take away property rights under the Land Titles Act, where there is no adverse possession (squatters’ rights) or prescriptive easement because nothing has to be registered under the R.A.A. 2(2).




Category: Your Rights