By: Jeff Bogaerts
Tree cutting by-laws. Have municipalities exceed their authority on Agricultural land?
History has shown that when government becomes involved in Agriculture it usually does not go well for the people.
The City of Hamilton refuses to see their error and continues to prosecute Farmers where they Harvest trees on their farmland without a municipal tree cutting permit. Municipal government continues to show their lack of Agricultural knowledge. They pass by-laws to control urban living and force this same ideology onto Farming practice.
Harvesting trees on farmland has been a practice in Ontario since the late 1700’s.
This story is a real case going to trial May 11 and 12. Every defence argument has been rejected by Hamilton including the Supreme Court of Canada ruling which created the Kienapple Principal. Kienapple v. R., 1974 CanLII 14 (SCC), [1975] 1 SCR 729, <https://canlii.ca/t/1twxz>
The Kienapple Principle — One Act, One Conviction
In 1974, the Supreme Court of Canada decided a case called Kienapple v. R. that established one of the most important fairness rules in Canadian criminal law. The principle is straightforward: if a person commits a single act, the government cannot convict them of two or more separate offences for that same conduct just because the law happens to describe it in different ways. For example, if someone is involved in one incident and the Crown lays two charges that are really just two labels for the same behaviour based on the same facts, the court must stay the lesser charge and enter only one conviction. The rule exists to prevent what amounts to double punishment — piling up convictions from a single event to inflate someone’s criminal record or increase their sentence. For the Kienapple principle to apply, the court looks at two things: whether the charges arise from the same set of facts, and whether the legal elements of the offences substantially overlap. If both conditions are met, only one conviction stands. It is a basic principle of justice that Canadians should understand — the state does not get to punish you twice for the same thing.
Even with this case at the Supreme Court level, Hamilton still wants to lay 64 charges times two against a Farmer and his wife. This leaves no room for any possible negotiations for a resolution.
Pay a fine for every tree cut. Total fines as of this writing is $50,000.00.
You Be The Judge. What is your ruling?
City of Hamilton v. The Farmer
Trial set for May 11 and 12, 2026.
Courtroom 201, 9:30am. Hamilton Provincial Offences Court
1.Executive Summary
This matter concerns 64 trees harvested on a farm in Hamilton. The farm is jointly owned and therefore the husband and wife (the farmers) were each charged with 64 counts of cutting the same 64 trees. The charges were laid using the City of Hamilton’s Woodland Conservation By-Law ROO-054. The Crown Grant was issued in 1801.
The defence position is:
1. The charges are defensible under the Charter, the Farming and Food Production Protection Act (FFPPA), the Forestry Act, the Planning Act, Municipal Act, Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act, 2020, S.O. 2020, c. 9 and Crown Grant rights.
2. The city exceeded its lawful authority in both the investigation and the application of the by-law.
3. The evidence was obtained through an unlawful search and is inadmissible under s. 24(2) of the Charter.
4. The by-law has no jurisdiction on the farm, as it restricts expressive agricultural land use protected under s. 2(b) of the Charter.
5. The city is oppressive, duplicative, and contrary to fundamental justice.
6. The appropriate resolution is dismissal of the charges. The municipality should update and rewrite their by-law.
As trial approaches the defence continues to seek additional legal arguments.
The Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth
By-Law No. ROO-054
Respecting:
WOODLAND CONSERVATION
To restrict and regulate the destruction of trees in the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth. The Municipal Act in force at this time was the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.45 Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.45 | ontario.ca The authority used by the by-law is theForestry Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.26 as amended.
Forestry Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.26 | ontario.ca
WHEREAS the Council of the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth deems it necessary to preserve and enhance the native biodiversity, forest, water, and soil resources of the region by promoting the sustainable use and wise management of
woodlands in the region.
AND WHEREAS Section 11 of the Forestry Act, R.S. 0. 1990, as amended, authorizes the Council of the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth to pass bylaws consistent with good forestry practices; The Woodland Conservation by-law relies on Section 11 of the Forestry Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.26 as amended. The following is an excerpt of section 11.
By-laws for acquiring lands for forestry purposes –
11 (1) The council of a municipality may pass by-laws,
(a) for acquiring by purchase, lease or otherwise, land for forestry purposes;
(b) for declaring land that is owned by the municipality to be required by the municipality for forestry purposes;
(c) for planting and protecting trees on any land acquired for or declared to be required for forestry purposes;
(d) for the management of any land acquired for or declared to be required for forestry purposes and the sale or other disposition of the trees thereon;
(e) for issuing debentures, without the assent of the electors, for the purpose of purchasing land for forestry purposes to an amount not exceeding the amount prescribed by the Minister to be owing at any one time;
(f) for entering into agreements for the management of any land acquired for or declared to be required for forestry purposes;
(g) for leasing, selling or otherwise disposing of any land acquired for or declared to be required for forestry purposes. 2002, c. 17, Sched. C, s. 12 (3).
Section 11 gives no authority to the municipality to enforce this section on private land. Section 11 authorizes the municipality to pass by-laws for its own purpose on its own land in respect to Forestry.
The Woodland Conservation by-law has no enforcement jurisdiction on the farm. What is your interpretation of Section 11? A by-law controlling Farmland or a by-law over land owned by the municipality?
2.Facts — The Farm Is an Active Agricultural Operation
The farm is a diversified, expanding, multi-sector agricultural operation. The following activities occur on the farm:
A. Orchard Development
Current:
• 43 apple
• 12 cherry
• 7 pear
• 15 peach
• 7 plum
• 1 hemlock
• Maple syrup
Planned expansion for 2026:
• 12 Balsam Fir
• 3 Paw Paw
• 2 Fig
B. Berry Production
Current:
• 20 Sea Buckthorn
• 4 Saskatoon
• 4 Haskap
• 6 Elderberry
• 5 Goji
Planned expansion for 2026:
• 8 Sea Buckthorn
• 6 Elderberry
C. Field Crops
Annual production:
• 500 tomatoes
• 1,000 potatoes
• 2,500 sweet corn
• 1,000 beans
• 200 pumpkins
• 200 watermelon
• 200 cantaloupe
• 300 cabbage
• 250 peppers
• 1,000 beets
• 500 squash
Page 5 of 19D. Livestock
• 100 laying hens
• 300 meat birds annually
E. Hayfield – planting for 2026
• 15-acre hayfield
F. Legal Significance
Current Farm Practice:
• The property is a working farm,
o not a residential lot
o not a commercial site
• Tree harvesting for agricultural expansion, is a protected activity.
• The by-law cannot apply to restrict normal farm practice.
• Farming is expressive land use protected under s. 2(b).
3.Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act, 2020
This report analyzes the legality of the by-law officer’s entry onto the farm.
Based on the Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act, 2020 (STPFSA), the Municipal Act, 2001, and Charter s. 8 jurisprudence, the conclusion is clear:
The by-law officer entered the farm without lawful authority. Therefore, all evidence obtained is tainted and must be excluded. The prosecution is compromised and should be dismissed. The analysis below provides the statutory, constitutional, and factual basis for this conclusion.
4.The Farm Property Is a Protected Farm Under the STPFSA
Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act, 2020
The farm property is an active, diversified agricultural operation that includes:
• 100 laying hens
• 300 meat birds annually
• a 15-acre hayfield
• extensive orchards (85 trees planted since 2024; 17 more planned)
• berry production (39 bushes planted; 14 more planned)
• large-scale vegetable production (thousands of plants annually) Under the Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act, 2020, this is unequivocally a farm with farm animals, and therefore an animal protection zone.
The STPFSA was enacted specifically to protect:
• livestock
• poultry
• food safety
• biosecurity
• farmers
The Act applies fully to the farm property.
5.Entry Into an Animal Protection Zone Requires Prior, Informed Consent
Section 5(1) of the STPFSA states:
No person shall enter in or on an animal protection zone on a farm without the prior consent of the owner or occupier.
The Act further provides:
• Consent cannot be implied (s. 5(5))
• Consent obtained by false pretenses is invalid (s. 5(6))
• The purpose of the Act is to prevent disease transmission, contamination, and biosecurity breaches No informed consent was given to the by-law officer. Therefore, the entry violated the STPFSA.
6.The Municipal Act Does Not Override the STPFSA
The Municipal Act provides limited administrative inspection powers.
However:
• the STPFSA is later legislation
• the STPFSA is more specific
• the STPFSA governs entry onto farms with animals Where statutes conflict:
The specific and later statute prevails over the general one. The STPFSA therefore limits and conditions Municipal Act entry powers on farms. The Municipal Act cannot be used to circumvent biosecurity law.
7.The s. 7(c) Exception Does Not Apply
Section 7(c) of the STPFSA exempts Municipal Act officers only when acting within the lawful scope of their duties.
The officer here:
• took photographs
• counted stumps
• documented evidence
• conducted measurements
• gathered investigative material This is an investigation, not inspection. Under the Municipal Act:
• inspection is permitted
• investigation requires a warrant or informed consent Neither occurred. Therefore, the officer was not acting within lawful Municipal Act authority, and the s. 7(c) exception does not apply.
8.Biosecurity Protocols Were Ignored
The officer entered a farm with a poultry operation without:
• sanitation
• protective gear
• contamination controls
• biosecurity clearance
This is the exact risk the STPFSA was enacted to prevent. The entry was contrary to:
• the purpose of the Act
• provincial agricultural policy
• food safety standards
This further supports the conclusion that the entry was unlawful.
9.Charter s. 8 — The Entry Was an Unreasonable Search
A “search” occurs when the state intrudes on a reasonable expectation of privacy.
A farm with livestock, poultry, and agricultural operations carries a high expectation of privacy, reinforced by:
• the STPFSA
• the FFPPA
• the nature of agricultural operations
• biosecurity requirements The officer’s entry was therefore a search.
A. The search was not authorized by law The STPFSA prohibits entry without consent. No consent was given.
B. The officer exceeded Municipal Act inspection powers Once the officer gathered evidence, the purpose shifted to investigation, requiring:
• a warrant, or
• informed consent
Neither was obtained.
C. The manner of entry was unreasonable
The officer:
• ignored biosecurity protocols
• entered a poultry operation without sanitation
• created contamination risks This is unreasonable under s. 8 of the Charter.
10.Charter s. 24(2) — All Evidence Must Be Excluded
Under R. v. Grant, evidence obtained through a serious Charter breach must be excluded.
A. Seriousness of the breach
• violation of a biosecurity statute
• unlawful investigative entry
• disregard for statutory limits
• disregard for Charter protections
B. Impact on the Farm interests
• privacy
• biosecurity
• animal health
• agricultural operations
• expressive land-use rights
C. Society’s interest in adjudication. Admitting the evidence would:
• condone unlawful entry
• undermine biosecurity law
• incentivize improper municipal conduct
11.Abuse of Process — Cumulative Misconduct
The combined effect of:
• unlawful entry
• biosecurity violations
• investigative overreach
• overcharging (64 counts each)
• mischaracterization of land use
• disregard for statutory protections
Meets the threshold for abuse of process.
The city is:
• oppressive
• unfair
• contrary to fundamental justice
• damaging to the integrity of the justice system
12.Conclusion
The by-law officer’s entry onto the farm was:
• unlawful under the STPFSA
• unlawful under the Municipal Act
• unreasonable under Charter s. 8
• fatal to the evidence under s. 24(2)
• part of a broader pattern of abuse of process
13.Charter s. 8 — Unlawful Search and Seizure
A. Municipal Act Limits
Section 436 of the Municipal Act authorizes administrative inspections only. If an officer:
• takes photographs
• counts stumps
• measures diameters
• identifies species
• gathers evidence
• the officer is conducting an investigation
Power of entry re inspection
436 (1) A municipality has the power to pass by-laws providing that the municipality may enter on land at any reasonable time for the purpose of carrying out an inspection to determine whether or not the following are being complied with:
1. A by-law of the municipality passed under this Act.
2. A direction or order of the municipality made under this Act or made under a by-law of the municipality passed under this Act.
3. A condition of a licence issued under a by-law of the municipality passed under this Act.
4. An order made under section 431. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 184.
When the officer crossed into investigative search, a judicial warrant under s. 439 of the Municipal was required.
B. The City Conducted an Investigative Search Without a Warrant
The evidence shows:
• the officer gathered evidence
• the purpose shifted from inspection to investigation
• no warrant was obtained
Search warrant
439 (1) A provincial judge or justice of the peace may issue a warrant authorizing a person named in the warrant to enter and search a building, receptacle or place for the evidence specified in the warrant if he or she is satisfied by information on oath that there is reasonable ground to believe that,
(a) an offence under this Act or a by-law passed under this Act has been committed; and
(b) the entry into and search of the building, receptacle or place will afford evidence relevant to the commission of the offence. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 184. This is an unreasonable search under s. 8.
C. Charter s. 24(2) — Evidence Must Be Excluded
Under R. v. Grant, evidence obtained through a serious Charter breach must be excluded.
• the breach is serious
• the intrusion is significant
• the impact on privacy is substantial
• the evidence is central to the prosecution
14.Charter s. 2(b) — Expressive Agricultural Land Use (Ruck)
The Ontario Superior Court in Ruck v. Mississauga, 2026 ONSC 73 held: “Gardening… has expressive content conveying meaning that is protected under s. 2(b).” “Nothing in the method or location of this form of expression conflicts with the values protected by s. 2(b).” “The By-law… prevent[s] Mr. Ruck from expressing himself in the manner and place of his choosing.”
Application to the Farm
If gardening is expressive, farming is unquestionably expressive.
Farming expresses:
• agricultural identity
• stewardship philosophy
• land-use autonomy
• intergenerational values
• livelihood
• rural culture
Tree clearing to expand cropland is:
• intentional
• meaningful
• expressive
• tied to livelihood
The By-Law Restricts Expression
The tree-cutting by-law prevents the farm from:
• expanding orchards
• expanding berry production
• expanding hayfields
• planting crops
• exercising agricultural autonomy
This is a direct s. 2(b) infringement.
The City Cannot Justify the Infringement Under s. 1
Ruck held that municipalities must provide:
• evidence of minimal impairment
• evidence of proportionality
• evidence of necessity
This is a recent ruling under the Charter in a case from Mississauga.
Source: Superior Court of Justice Date: 2026-01-06 File number: CV-25-1572 Ruck v. City of Mississauga, 2026 ONSC 73 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/khf6h> The following is an excerpt from the Ruck case. I have substituted the wording that would support a charter application under Section 2 to support the farm rather than the front lawn of a private home.
b. Constitutionality of the By-law
i. Section 2(b) of the Charter
[42] In my view, the City has fairly conceded that the tall grass and nuisance weed provisions … (“TREE BY-LAW”) … at ss. 5 and 6 of the By-law infringe Mr. Ruck’s constitutional right to freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter. The s. 2(b) protection is intended to, “ensure that everyone can manifest their thoughts, opinions, beliefs, indeed all expressions of the heart and mind, however unpopular, distasteful or contrary to the mainstream”: Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General), 1989 CanLII 87 (SCC), [1989] 1 SCR 927 at p. 968; Benchwood Builders Inc. v. Prescott, 2025 ONCA 171 at para 21, leave to appeal denied 2025 CanLII 107868 (SCC).
The test for finding an infringement of the s. 2(b) right to free expression involves three (3) inquiries:
(1) does the activity in question have expressive content to bring it within the reach of s. 2(b)?
(2) is the activity excluded from protection due to the method or location of expression? and
(3) if the activity is protected, does an infringement of the protected right result from either the purpose or the effect of the government action?: Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 SCC 2 at para 38, citing Ontario (Public Safety and Security) v Criminal Lawyers’ Association, 2010 SCC 23 at para 32 and Montréal (City) v. 2952-1366 Québec Inc., 2005 SCC 62 at para 56; Langenfeld v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2019 ONCA 716 at para 18, leave to appeal denied 2020 CanLII 25159 (SCC).
Expressive activity that is performed to convey meaning is protected under s. 2(b) and is afforded a large and liberal interpretation: Canadian Broadcasting Corp. at para 34; Irwin Toy at pp. 968-970.
[43] As the right to free expression has broad application, I accept that gardening
…(“FARMING”) …, including the efforts by Mr. Ruck to maintain a naturalized …(“FARM”)
…, garden on his property with tall grass and nuisance weeds, has expressive content conveying meaning that is protected under s. 2(b) of the Charter: Bell v. Toronto (City), [1996] OJ No 3146 (Prov Div) at para 52.
[44] I find no basis to exclude Mr. Ruck’s non-conventional gardening activity from protection under s. 2(b) of the Charter. As an environmentalist, …(“FARMER”) …, Mr. Ruck has adopted a landscaping
…(“FARMING”) …, form on his property to convey his views about the importance of co- existing with nature, the need for biodiversity and wildlife-friendly naturalization efforts in urban areas, and the value of maintaining harmony with the natural environment. In my view, nothing in the method or location of this form of expression conflicts with the values protected by s. 2(b) to make it unsuitable for exercising the right to free expression: Canadian Broadcasting Corp. at para 37.
[45] Having regard to the nature of the tall grass and noxious weed restrictions under ss. 5 and 6 of the By-law, I accept that the purpose and effect of these provisions, when enforced, prevent Mr. Ruck from expressing himself in the manner and place of his choosing.
Accordingly, I accept that the By-law has the effect of infringing his right to free expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter. This argument will be brought forward as a charter application that the Woodland Conservation by-law infringes on the Normal Farm Practice of the farm in terms of Harvesting trees. An activity that has been part of the Ontario farming community for over 200 hundred years and continues today.
15.FFPPA — Normal Farm Practice The Farming and Food Production Protection Act provides:
“No municipal by-law applies to restrict a normal farm practice carried on as part of an agricultural operation.” Tree removal to:
• expand orchards
• expand hayfields
• plant crops
• manage silviculture is normal farm practice.
16.Forestry Act — Municipalities Have No Authority Over Farmland
The Forestry Act defines:
“forestry purposes” includes the production of wood and wood products, provision of proper environmental conditions for wild life, protection against floods and erosion, recreation, and protection and production of water supplies; (“fins forestières”) “good forestry practices” means the proper implementation of harvest, renewal and maintenance activities known to be appropriate for the forest and environmental conditions under which they are being applied and that minimize detriments to forest values including significant ecosystems, important fish and wildlife habitat, soil and water quality and quantity, forest productivity and health and the aesthetics and recreational opportunities of the landscape; (“bonnes pratiques forestières”) Section 11of the Forestry Act does not authorize municipalities to regulate tree cutting on farmland.
17.Planning Act s. 34(9) — Legal Non-Conforming Use The farm has been in continuous agricultural use since the 1800s.
Tree clearing to expand cropland is:
• consistent with historical use
• consistent with agricultural purpose
• legally protected
Excepted lands and buildings
34 (9) No by-law passed under this section applies,
(a) to prevent the use of any land, building or structure for any purpose prohibited by the by- law if such land, building or structure was lawfully used for such purpose on the day of the passing of the by-law, so long as it continues to be used for that purpose; or
(b) to prevent the erection or use for a purpose prohibited by the by-law of any building or structure for which a permit has been issued under subsection 8 (1) of the Building Code Act, 1992, prior to the day of the passing of the by-law, so long as the building or structure when erected is used and continues to be used for the purpose for which it was erected and provided the permit has not been revoked under subsection 8 (10) of that Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, s. 34 (9); 2009, c. 33, Sched. 21, s. 10 (1).
18.Municipal Act – Section 14
Conflict between by-law and statutes, etc.
14 (1) A by-law is without effect to the extent of any conflict with,
(a) a provincial or federal Act or a regulation made under such an Act; or
(b) an instrument of a legislative nature, including an order, licence or approval, made or issued under a provincial or federal Act or regulation. 2001, c. 25, s. 14.
Same
(2) Without restricting the generality of subsection (1), there is a conflict between a by-law of a municipality and an Act, regulation or instrument described in that subsection if the by-law frustrates the purpose of the Act, regulation or instrument. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 10. Municipal Act s. 14 confirms: A by-law is without effect if it conflicts with superior law. The by-law is without effect on the farm.
19.Overview – Crown Land Patent Grant and Municipal Limits This is an analysis of the Crown Patent issued July 5, 1801, under King George III, granting 450 acres in the Township of Ancaster to John Smith. The purpose of this report is to explain:
• what rights the Crown Patent grants
• what rights the Crown reserved
• how Crown Patent rights limit municipal authority
• how these principles apply to the farm case
• why the City of Hamilton cannot override Crown-granted land-use rights through a tree-cutting by-law
20.A Crown Patent Is a Constitutional Instrument
A Crown Patent is not a municipal document. It is:
• issued under the Royal Prerogative
• the root of title for all land in Ontario
• constitutionally superior to municipal by-laws
• binding on the Crown and all subordinate governments
• a grant of vested rights that cannot be removed except by express legislative action The Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly held that Crown Grants:
• confer perpetual rights
• cannot be overridden by implication
• can only be altered by clear, express statutory language No Ontario statute expressly removes the land-use rights granted in the 1801 Patent.
21.Rights Granted in the 1801 Crown Patent
The Patent grants:
“ALL that parcel or tract of land… together with all the Woods and Waters thereon lying and being…”
This includes:
A. Timber Rights
• all trees
• the right to harvest timber
• the right to clear land for cultivation
• the right to use timber for building, fencing, and agricultural purposes
B. Water Rights
• streams
• creeks
• ponds
• riparian rights
• the right to use water for farming and settlement
C. Land-Use Rights
• the right to build
• the right to cultivate
• the right to improve the land
• the right to use the land for agricultural purposes
• the right to manage and develop the land
D. Perpetual Ownership
The Patent grants the land to the patentee and:
“his Heirs and Assigns forever.” These rights run with the land and remain today unless expressly removed by statute.
22.Crown Reservations — The ONLY Limits on the Owner’s Rights
The Patent contains only two reservations:
A. Gold and Silver Mines
“saving… all mines of Gold and Silver…”
B. White Pine Trees – (later removed – white pine reverted to landowners)
“saving, and reserving… all white Pine Trees…”
Historically, white pine was reserved for the British Crown for shipbuilding (masts and spars) in pre-Confederation grants. Following Confederation, Ontario moved toward statutorily releasing these tree reservations through various amendments to the Public Lands Act to simplify land ownership for patentees. These are the only resources the Crown retained. Everything else, all other trees, minerals, soil, water, and land-use rights, were granted to the owner. A municipality cannot create new reservations or impose new restrictions on resources the Crown did not reserve.
23.Settlement Duties Confirm the Crown’s Intent: Clearing and Farming
The Patent requires the patentee to:
“erect and build… a good and sufficient dwelling house…”
“be therein resident…”
“improve the land…”
These duties required:
• clearing land
• harvesting timber
• cultivating fields
• establishing a farm
• building structures
The Crown intended — and required — the land to be used productively. Tree-cutting for farming is not only permitted — it is consistent with the original Crown purpose. A municipal by-law that prohibits clearing for farming contradicts the Crown’s original grant.
24.Municipalities Cannot Override Crown Patent Rights
Municipalities are:
• statutory creatures
• subordinate to the Legislature
• without inherent powers
They cannot:
• contradict a Crown Patent
• remove rights granted by the Crown
• impose new conditions on Crown-granted land
• frustrate the purpose of the original grant
This is reinforced by the Municipal Act:
Section 14 — Conflict with Superior Law
A by-law is without effect if it conflicts with a provincial or federal act. A Crown Patent is superior law. Municipal by-laws cannot override it.
25.Application to the Farm Case
The farm is:
• historically agricultural
• continuously agricultural
• used for orchards, berries, hayfields, livestock, and crops
• consistent with the original Crown purpose Tree-cutting to expand cropland is:
• a Crown-granted right
• a normal farm practice
• consistent with settlement duties
• consistent with agricultural development
• protected by the FFPPA
• protected by the Charter (s. 2(b) expressive land use) The City of Hamilton cannot use a municipal by-law to restrict Crown-granted rights to clear and cultivate land.
26.Combined Effect With Other Statutes
A. FFPPA (Farming and Food Production Protection Act) Municipal by-laws cannot restrict normal farm practice.
B. Forestry Act Municipalities have no authority over tree cutting on private farmland.
C. STPFSA (Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act) Municipal entry onto a farm is restricted and requires consent.
D. Charter s. 2(b) Farming is expressive land use.
E. Charter s. 8 Unlawful entry taints all evidence.
27.Conclusion
The 1801 Crown Patent grants the landowner broad, perpetual rights to use, clear, cultivate, and improve the land. Municipalities cannot override these rights through a tree-cutting by-law.
The City of Hamilton Woodland Conservation by-law has no jurisdiction on the farm contrary to the Crown Patent and Section 14 of the Municipal Act and in addition to other legislative previously mentioned.
28.POA Procedural Defects — Separate Information’s – Separate Charter Arguments
The City laid:
• Information A (Husband)
• Information B (Wife)
They are not co-accused. Separate trials are required.
Joinder would:
• prejudice the accused
• merge evidence
• undermine Charter rights
• risk unfair inference
29.Abuse of Process
The city is:
• duplicative
• oppressive
• disproportionate
• contrary to fundamental justice
30.Resolution Proposal
Given:
• Charter breaches
• FFPPA protection
• Forestry Act limits
• Crown Grant rights
• unlawful search
• inadmissible evidence
• procedural defects
• abuse of process
The appropriate resolution is:
Dismiss the charges against the farmers.
The city to update and rewrite the Woodland Conservation by-law.
Jeff Bogaerts
President – Ontario Landowners
defending property rights since 2003