Apply for your Crown Land Patent

Published April 6, 2010

CLP250-newLiz Marshall is available for bookings to explain the force, effect and authority of the Crown Land Patent Grants more information, or copies of her Radio interview with Nick Vandergragt of CFRA, please contact clpmeeting@brucetelecom.com

Click here to download the OLA Crown Land Patent Grant Information Package

The Crown Land Patent Grants are contracts and are Letters Patent. There is nothing Constitutional about the Patents, they are based in contract law and are regulated by common law. They are a contract between the Crown, the Grantee/Patentee, their heirs and assigns forever. A patent, it would seem, of any kind usually has a time limit and the time limit for the Crown Land Patent Grants is “forever”. To use the words of Nick Vandergragt, radio talk show host, “forever hasn’t happened yet.” These documents, at the time of construction, were also, it would seem, Acts of Imperial Parliament and have specific “reservations” reserved to the Crown, the Crown’s heirs and successors. These reservations can include: mines or gold, mines and minerals, navigable water-ways, white pines, etc. They are also your property rights as after 60 years of adverse possession from the Crown, the Crown has no right, title or interest in the lands conveyed. That is to say the property that one owns, it would seem, is not subject to the whims of the Crown.

This 60 year adverse possession is governed by the Nullum Tempus Act of 1769, which governs the Crown’s 60 year prerogative. In this act the Crown was made to set a specific time limit on how long it could take the land back to itself to be re-granted. The King, of the time, had a habit of granting land and when the landowner fell out of grace with the King, the King would simply come up with an idea and take the land back, leaving the property available for the Kings new favoured pet, sound familiar.

As for the legislation at the time of issuance, it pertains to the reservations, as in mines and minerals. Some grants did not reserve the mines or minerals to the Crown, ergo, the mines and minerals were the property of the patentee the heirs and assigns. Based on a case in 2008, the legislation at the time of issuance of the patent was used to determine that the new purchaser would own the mineral rights to the land. There is MNR policy that explains the different reservations and that some reservations can and have been voided by statute. For example…4.1.2 of this policy states

“4.1.2 Mines and Minerals – Granted before May 6, 1913

With the exception of mines and minerals which have been disposed of under the Mining Act or any predecessor of that Act, where mines and minerals have reverted to the Crown, all reservations of mines and minerals in any lands patented before May 6, 1913 are void.”

The reversal and voidance of any reservation must be to the advantage of the Grantee/Patentee as expressed in a number of court cases and Royal Proclamations. On a statement of a fellow that approached his lawyer, in regards to applying for a reversal of a reservation, it would seem, he would be re-negotiating his “contract” and may become subject to the legislation of today. For this reason, it would seem, to side on the side of caution, people may want to rethink applying for a reversal or voidance of a reservation at this time.

In regards to regulating private property, common law is the only real law and has been used for centuries. Quebec is the only province in Canada that does not subscribe to Common Law. Their legal system is based on Civil/Statute law and it is “written law” produced to regulate society. Under Civil Law, no one can own anything, whereas under a Common Law system, there is ownership. One explanation of this is the explanation of Fee Simple from the Guide to the Federal Real Property Act which expressed:

“What is fee simple?

At common law, an estate in fee simple in a parcel of land is one transferred absolutely to a person and his or her heirs, forever, without any conditions. This is the highest estate in land that can be held by a person in a common law province. The civil law equivalent of a fee simple estate is the concept of “ownership,” which is the right of enjoying and disposing of an immovable in the most absolute manner. The only restriction is that no use be made of the immovable that is prohibited by law or regulation. An estate in fee simple is freely transferable by deed, will or otherwise.”

Ontario is a Common Law province and yet our legislators are treating this province as if it were ruled by Civil Law.

This leads us to the statement in the Midland Free Press, in regards to the “Attorney General of Ontario v. The Rowntree Beach Association (1994)” where it is clearly stated: “Public “user rights” over private property only become legal rights upon a successful application to the court initiated by the Attorney General.”, and “If you don’t own it, you cannot plan for it.”

Under Common Law a person cannot dirty his neighbors air, soil or water, he cannot block up the water, as the water has to flow freely down-stream for the usage of others. This has been set in Common Law as stated by Blackstone in 1768:

“It is a nuisance to stop or divert water that used to run to another’s meadow or mill; to corrupt or poison a water-course, by erecting a dye–house or a lime-pit for the use of trade, in the upper part of the stream; or in sort to do any act therein, that in its consequences must necessarily lend to the prejudice of one’s neighbour. So closely does the law of England enforce that excellent rule of gospel, morality, of doing to others, as we would they should do unto ourselves.”

And if a neighbor has a situation with his neighbor, he has the option of launching a tort. There is confusion as there are two types of Civil Law. One being statute law, the other being private law. Private civil law, between two people is the right to launch a case in a court of civil/private law.

The question is why haven’t we heard of the Crown Land Patent Grants and why have we not known of our rights. Again this is expressed in the Guide to the Federal Real Property Act:

“In addition, letters patents are still required for a more esoteric legal reason… Over the years court cases have dealt with the legal force and effect of letters patent. Therefore, we need to keep letters patent at least to have this jurisprudence continue to apply to the instruments of grant”

Funk and Wagnal there definition is: “Esoteric: 1. Understood by or meant for only a few specially instructed or initiated individuals: esoteric doctrine. 2. Confidential; kept secret: an esoteric motive. – See mysterious.”

They are still a contract and they are still patents and they, it would seem, are still private property rights. Without the knowledge of these documents people, through the generations, have been denied their rights and the right to use whatever means possible to defend their ownership. It had been so engrained in people that they had property and land rights, that they had become complacent and allowed themselves to be governed by legislation that did not pertain to them. They owned their land, they owned their property and unless there was a successful application to the courts, in regards to regulating the right, title or interest of the land and property, no second or third party had option of dictating to the owner of the property, including the land use conditions, unless specifically expressed in the Letters Patent.

The Ministry of Natural Resources are fully aware of Land Use Conditions and as expressed from their own policy:

4.2.2 Land Use Condition

Occasional patents issued after 1959 may contain land use condition authorized by section 18, to the effect of the following: “It is a condition of these letters patent that the land granted shall be used for __________ purposes only.”

Typically, land use conditions have been imposed to confine the use of lands to agricultural, conservation authority or municipal purposes. Rarely, the clause may indicate that the lands shall not be used for a particular purpose.”

From the MNR page in regards to Land Tenure:

“Sale and Issuance of Letters Patent

The Ministry of Natural Resources does not retain future options for the land and does not control use”

They know that the legislators have over-stepped the law, but legislation does not have to be fair, justifiable or constitutional and it does not have to support anyone’s rights or freedoms, it is merely a thought, an idea or a whim of the legislator of the day. It must also be remembered that legislation can be amended, revoked, repealed or quashed, again, by the legislator of the day, giving legislation no solid credibility. On the other hand the people that are landowners in fee simple do have their rights, established in the Crown Land Patent Grants, and now it is for them to stand up and take their legal rights back to themselves. In the Royal Proclamation of 1763 it clearly stated that it is to be to the advantage of the Grantee/patentee. It is also expressed in 1920, Attorney-General v. DeKeyer’s Royal Hotel:

“This is a fundamental principle, going back at least to Magna Carta,” , Lord Parmoor said: “Since Magna Carta the estate of a subject in lands or buildings has been protected against the prerogative of the Crown.”

In 1999, the Supreme Court of Canada decided the case of Wells v. Newfoundland, Judge J. Major:

“In a nation governed by the rule of law, we assume that the government will honour its obligations unless it explicitly exercises its power not to. In the absence of a clear express intent to abrogate rights and obligations—rights of the highest importance to the individual—those rights remain in force. To argue the opposite is to say that the government is bound only by its whim, not its word. In Canada this is unacceptable, and does not accord with the nation’s understanding of the relationship between the state and its citizens.”

“Writing for the Court, Major J. concluded that, while Wells’ position could be terminated by statute, absent express statutory provisions to the contrary, contract law and contract remedies governed the employment relationship. Consequently, as the Crown was in breach of its contract with Wells, he was entitled to compensation by way of damages.”

The government; all governments, are legally bound by contract, as expressed under Common Law, and the government on all levels, is not above the law. The definition of the Crown Land Patent Grants, as expressed by the Guide to the Federal Real Property Act entitles the grantee/patentee rights and authority over their possessions. Quote:

“The definition extended the previous definition of “grant” under the Public Lands Grants Act. The previous definition limited Crown grants to those conveying a fee simple or equivalent estate in real property.” Letters patent have been defined as “writing of the sovereign, sealed with the Great Seal, whereby a person or company is entitled to do acts or enjoy privileges which could not be done or enjoyed without such authority.”

We hope this clears up any ambiguity as to what the Crown Land Patent Grants are and how legislation, it would seem, does not apply to privately owned land or property. It is up to the people to stand up for their rights, exercise their rights and to instruct their elected officials as to what they will and will not accept. It is also the duty of each individual to respect the rights that the Crown Land Patent Grants afford, and to accept their own individual responsibility that come with those rights.

Click here to download the OLA Crown Land Patent Grant Information Package

Regards,
The Crown Land Patent Committee
Ontario Landowner’s Association

Without Prejudice

No Response to “Apply for your Crown Land Patent”

Comments are closed.

E-Newsletter!
Get all the latest OLA news
delivered monthly right to your inbox!