The Gilmor Case by Tom Black

Published June 1, 2017

Tom Black

A couple of years ago, a young lawyer, by the name of Arkadi Bouchelev came to the Ontario Landowners with a case he had won in the Ontario Superior court of Justice. The case was what became known in our circles as “the Gilmor case”, and came about when the Gilmor family asked for a building permit to build a house on a ten acre lot that they bought in 2008. The lot had been severed several years before, along with nine others from a one hundred acre property. All of the other nine lots already had houses built on them, and the Gilmors assumed there would be no issue with theirs. They were wrong and the Nottawasaga conservation Authorities told them that they could not build on the property because of safety issues that may occur with a 100 year flood scenario. They suggested that emergency vehicles would not be able to get down the road to come to their rescue.

So the Gilmors went through many levels of appeals plus the Mining and Lands commission with no help. They then hired Arkadi Bouchelev and went to Superior Court of Justice, Divisional Court. The result was a unanimous decision from three judges, explaining that the Nottawasaga Conservation Authority had overstepped their mandate, which did not give them authority over personal safety issues. They instructed them to give the Gilmors their building permit.

This was a most important win for all of Ontario citizens even those that don’t own property, because it recognized the importance of individual rights and freedoms as opposed to the right of the state to impose their will. However, it was not to be, because it would have forced all government departments to go back to their mandate in the law and not infringe on private citizens rights. So the Ministry of Natural Resources appealed the decision to the Ontario Superior Court of Appeal. They also funded appeals for Conservation Ontario and the Nottawasaga Conservation Authorities.

The Gilmors felt that the Justice system in Ontario failed them and decided not to retain a lawyer to defend the win. Arkadi Bouchelev searched around for someone to intervene on behalf of the case, and approached the OLA to do so. We agreed to act as intervenors and hired Arkadi to do it. Our application was rejected. David Medhurst then applied to be intervenor with his group. They were denied. David Guergis then applied and was denied. How come the MNR and Conservation Ontario were allowed to be intervenors on behalf of the Nottawasaga Conservation against the Gilmors?

In the end three judges from the Court of Appeal of Ontario, overturned the verdict of three other judges, without allowing a well-informed intervenor to defend the case. You would think that the optics of this massive response by government departments to secure their power and control over a private citizen of this country, would be an obvious abuse of the taxpayers dollar, and a misuse of the justice system, by all agents of government including the justice system.

The judgment referred to words like “reasonableness & appropriateness” ignoring the laws of the land, that are supposed to be what superior court judges are required to base their judgment on.

The only thing left now is for the Gilmors to appeal to the Supreme Court to get resolution. This solution is virtually out of reach for any average citizen and thus, justice is not served.

10 Responses to “The Gilmor Case by Tom Black”

  1. Ken Hughes June 27, 2017

    The info is correct and I would be willing to also sit and educate with others of Common Law.Please those in the Gilmor family do not give up as this is just starting and many that have opposed will be paying huge damages!Ken Hughes

  2. Lynda June 20, 2017

    Looking to connect with Grace, Bob, Gail, Steve, Chris, Irma and/or John re above topic. Would you please e-mail me at ….would like to join forces in educating Canadians.

  3. G. Ross June 6, 2017

    We have been fighting for 5 years and still going. Can you email me.
    We own 30 acres. 26 PSW and the Township dug a drain into my private property from the roadside ditch. Flooding big time. When we stopped it on my property the NPCA gave us 6 charges under the CAA. I had 5 lawyers.Now am on my own in Appeal court.
    Could use all the help I can get !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  4. Steve Ilievski June 4, 2017

    I have on a few occasions informed the Landowners on Common Law. Canada along with Britain, US, Australia and New Zeland are all Common Law jurisdictions. Everything in Canada is a corporation and everything operates under maritime law, the law of the sea. Common Law is the law of the land. Under Common Law we have a right to do with our property as we want so long as we do not harm by our activities another man or woman. If a corporation like a Conservation Authority charges us, we can as a man or a woman require that a man or woman prove that we have caused them harm. It must be a man or a woman since an attorney has no standing in common law court as they have no first hand knowledge of the matter. If they have no claim against me a man or woman. The man or woman who has made a false claim against me can be sued for damages. Look up Karl Lentz on YouTube and google Anna von Reitz for more information on Common Law.

  5. Bob Marcellus June 2, 2017

    marcellus@bell,net not nert

  6. Bob Marcellus June 2, 2017

    Grace you and I are on the same Page. contact me zt marcellus@bell.nert

  7. Chris Heinrich June 1, 2017

    If this is a solution to the problem of a corrupt judicial system then maybe you should come forward with all the details and benefits of “full legal capacity”, and how individuals can use this method or process to further their cause. Does the OLA know about this?

  8. Irma DeVries June 1, 2017

    Grace, we need to talk. Please call email me or call me.
    We live near Harriston. Sincerely, John and Irma

  9. Grace Joubarne June 1, 2017

    No amount of money is going to stop the corporate government in a Civil court. Judges must uphold civil law (enactments, regulations, etc) unless and until an individual stands on their Full Legal Capacity. When they invoke their right to the Administration of Justice (yes, a legal term), the courts are then obligated to enforce fundamental human rights as expressed in the ICCPR and ICESCR. NOT UNTIL THAT IS DONE ARE THE COURTS REQUIRED TO SHIFT GEARS.

    It is not too late, the Gilmours can still stand on their FLC rights, but they need to learn the process from start to finish and they need to stay away from lawyers because they are ONLY permitted to represent a legal person in civil law. No one can represent an individual seeking Administration of Justice in their FLC.

    If the Gilmours wish to get in touch with me, I get teach them what they need to know. There is are two main points working for them
    (a) the government is legally obligated to teach every Canadian about their fundamental rights and freedoms under the ICCPR and ICESCR and to teach them how to properly stand on their Full Legal Capacity Rights to enforce them.
    The government has failed in its legal obligations, and

    (b) the government is legally obligated to provide EFFECTIVE remedy for all violations and abridgments of fundamental human rights as laid out in the ICCPR and ICESCR and the outcome of these cases proves that civil law proceedings are NOT effective remedy. CIVIL law proceedings are not to uphold common law rights, but to uphold corporate civil law. There is a huge difference in these since 1982. Thus the Gilmours did not get effective remedy which is also a violation of their rights.

    There is also a law under ICCPR and ICESCR and SCC decision that no internal laws and regulations can be used to extinguish a fundamental right or freedom and any such internal laws are of no force.

    The error everyone makes is to ask for a permit in the first place…this is saying that you agree to be in servitude to the municipality. You have the legal right to refuse to be involved with the municipal corporation or any corporation. Everyone needs to follow the proper format to dissociate from the municipality and stand on their fundamental rights and freedoms.

    You are blowing hot air to say that you have ‘rights’ and then have no idea where they are, how to interpret the wording that sets us all free and then on top of that, instead of taking the right path into enforcement of Common Law (ICCPR, ICESCR) rights, suggest that you are going to stand before the very corporate players that are removing your rights.

    If the results of this case is not enough to cause OLA directors to at least give others a chance to share their knowledge and ideas/plans, then nothing will.

  10. Dan Thomey June 1, 2017

    If there ever was a need for a legal fund, this it. What kind of money would be needed to take this case forward to the Supreme Court?

    How many members are in the Landowners Association and what cost per person would it take to go forward?

    Is it realistic to do? What other funding organization is out there that could be interested?

    Thanks for listing to my rant. —- Dan

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

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