Court Cases in Renfrew County by Donna Burns

Published November 1, 2015

Donna Burns, President of the Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke Landowners Association reports on four ongoing court cases.

Our chapter has had 4 court cases this week:

Case #1: North Bay: One of our members (Leo) from our Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke chapter had a trial in North Bay Superior Court of Justice on Mon. Oct. 27th. Leo had an issue with the municipality in Mattawa wherein he built his own laneway into his property for his private use because the Township would not resume maintaining a grown-over bylaw road located just over the concession line at the edge of his land. Once he gravelled and put considerable expense to his private laneway, the Township claimed it as their old bylaw road. The legal surveys show Leo’s laneway as solely on his property, yet the Township is approving severances of lots that require trespassing across his private laneway for access. The Township refused to negotiate compensation, but instead insisted he “deed” his laneway to them. They had the option of expropriating but never did. Instead they forced Leo to incur huge legal and survey costs to protect his private property rights. Terrence Green and Jeff Bogaerts were representing Leo at the Superior Court of Justice in North Bay expecting a one-day trial that continued into part of the next day (Tues. Oct 28th). It will be several weeks before a decision comes down from the Judge on the outcome of this trial.

Case #2 & 3: Pembroke: Two members of the Renfrew Landowners Board of Directors made their 20th appearance in Pembroke court Monday, Oct. 27th regarding the dog tag war wherein they had to report to the Court that the dates set for trial for these two cases will be March 2-4th, 2016 allowing 1-1/2 days for each case. This case began in October 2013. There have been 3 different Justices of the Peace who have sat before them on this case in addition to 3 different lawyers from the same firm of the prosecution. The Township charged both parties for “failure to buy a dog tag”. There were over 400 people in this same township that did not purchase a dog tag, but only these two people were charged who coincidentally happen to sit on the Board of Directors of our chapter of the Ontario Landowners. Their dispute is based on the fact that they believe this bylaw is an illegal bylaw and that the municipality only has authority to impound or muzzle a dog “running at large” as per sections 103 and 105 of the Municipal Act of Ontario. Terrence Green’s office unable to attend due to the trial in North Bay, provided instructions to the two clients to speak themselves on their matter.

Case #4: Pembroke: A third member (Doug) of our Chapter Board of Directors made an appearance in Pembroke court Monday, Oct. 27th regarding a dispute between the volunteer fire department of this same municipality involved in the dog tag war. Doug is the owner of the Chip Truck and his problems with the Fire Department suddenly began when he became a Director for the Renfrew Landowners. He had been in business for 6 years prior to that and never once was there an inspection or any issue with the fire department regarding his business. This case was to go to trial on Tues. Oct. 28th, however, Mr. Green’s office only received partial disclosure early last week. They had been requesting it since August. As a result, they were seeking an adjournment for trial and made such a request to the prosecutor’s office. (It is the normal practice to have disclosure material (the evidence the prosecutor has against the defendant) provided to the defence team at least 4 weeks before going to trial in order for the defence to review it and prepare for trial.) It was arranged so that our Director can make the request for adjournment since Mr. Green and Mr. Bogaerts were both in North Bay and it was assumed that because of the lateness in receiving the disclosure information, there would be no problem in getting an adjournment. However, Doug was informed by the prosecution that their client (the municipality) did not want an adjournment. The Justice of the Peace, who also happened to be the same JP who signed subpoenas for Doug last week and learned of the lateness of the disclosure, suggested to Doug that he should be getting an adjournment for the trial. However, at the court hearing on Monday, the same JP denied the request for adjournment. The Universe works in mysterious ways…….with the trial going on in North Bay at the Superior Court level, the North Bay Judge did not want his trial to be delayed any further due to the length in time and great expense already ensued. When he learned that both Mr. Green and Mr. Bogaerts were both required to be in Pembroke at the Provincial Offence Court as a result of the denial of adjournment from the Justice of the Peace, this Judge hastily made some phone calls to East Regional Senior Justice of the Peace’s office and the prosecutor in Pembroke ordering the “adjournment” in Pembroke to allow Mr. Green and Mr. Bogaerts to be available in North Bay the next day for the continuation of Leo’s trial above. Needless to say, when we appeared in court on Tues. Oct. 28th (after learning late the night before that there will now be an adjournment), there were some very upset people on the side of the municipality who expected to proceed to trial. This is an example that shows where the Superior Court of Justice has more jurisdiction over the Provincial Offence Court.

It seems the Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke chapter have awakened a sleeping giant in Renfrew County by taking a stand to protect private property rights and making aware the legislation that is written to do so. It is still our hope that even with all this conflict, eventually, eyes will open up and some good will come out of this in the end.

5 Responses to “Court Cases in Renfrew County by Donna Burns”

  1. chris Thompson February 23, 2016

    A friend’s horse was shot to death near Springtown during deer hunting season, Nov. 2015. The alleged perpetrator has been charged by the MNR and was due in Renfrew court 22/02/2016. Likely he was remanded but I couldn’t find anything on line including the MNR site. Is this something you would follow? Regardless of who is proven to be the culprit, the perpetrator of this unforgivable crime is a danger to our privileges, principals, safety, and humanity. Any animal can be a part of ones family.
    Concerned, conscientious hunter.

  2. Gary November 1, 2015

    Looks like functioning inside the statutory legal game isn’t working. Common Law would remove the “requests”, or begging to a higher authority, with holding your own court, where you “require” these [wo]man that think they can mess with your property to stop or sue them personally. Public officials are fictious legal personnas, that a [wo]man can hold, however if a [wo]man is acting in this personna in a CL court, they can neither speak, nor take part in the proceedings. The trick is to know how to hold your own court, and prosecute the [wo]man acting against your property unlawfully.

  3. Ken Hughes November 1, 2015

    Where are their Crown or letter Patents? Better sooner than later! Good Luck!

  4. gord day November 1, 2015

    I dont own a dog but I see any reason any dog needs to be licenced.. if it never leaves the property.

    I recently learned that out twp has cat licenses also.. WTF??

    It is purely a money grab, but discretional as to whom they prosecute/persecute.

    think of the old lady with the tiny poodle who is a total house dog..

    under this ‘laW’ she is required to license that pooch.

    I have had numerous problems with 3 large dogs belonging to a nieghbour..

    I called animal control many times over the last 6 yrs.

    the dogs still come over and leave their greeting cards .. every day as well as harrass my chickens and destroy my bird feeder..

    finally, after umteenth times calling animal control, I asked “what are you doing about it”

    they said “would you be willing to go to court”?

    I affirmed, and never heard a word about it.

    I have a large live trap that so far has only caught raccoons and the poor wandering stray cat who is so scared of any sign of humans.

    I beleive an apprehended dog costs about $125 for the owner to get it back.

    I will catch one of these dogs in my trap and charge the owner $50 to have me NOT call animal control.

    my property is also posted as to

    “entry is by permit only.

    permit fee $500 per use.

    entering, denotes acceptance of these terms

    emergency vehicles excepted.”

    to me this sign is no different from a club owner stating a cover charge is required to enter.

    this is my club, and I will weild it.

  5. Art Jefford November 1, 2015

    Donna …..Re; Case Reporting
    This case report was excellent and very interesting.
    It would seem to be a great idea for updates to be released like this on everyone’s Court activity, updates, arguments and rulings
    As it would certainly help the next victim perfect their arguments


Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

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