Are you aware that the liberal government has approved a High-Speed Rail project to travel from Toronto to Quebec? 

A new Crown Corporation, Alto, has been established to oversee the project.  Public consultations are underway and will end on April 24, 2026. See https://www.altotrain.ca/en for information about the project and the public consultations. The Ottawa in-public meetings took place in January.

Why is this project important to property owners? 

Federal Bill C-15 proposes substantial amendments to the Expropriation Act to facilitate the development of a high-speed rail network connecting Ontario and Quebec.  Please see what Toronto expropriation lawyers Davies Howe have to say about Bill C-15 at https://davieshowe.com/bill-c-15-key-changes-to-the-federal-expropriation-act-for-high-speed-rail-projects/  The rights of property owners during expropriation for this project are being limited or removed.

Here is a link to Bill C-15: https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/C-15/first-reading. Imbedded in the Act is the High-Speed Rail Network Act. This Act states: 

This probably can be interpreted as "In the national interest".

Please note that this Bill has passed in the House of Commons (on division) and has passed the Senate as of March 26, 2026.

A group in South Frontenac has already mobilized to oppose the project. They have a Facebook page "Save South Frontenac: No High Speed Rail..." They are actively trying to raise awareness of the project and reach out to elected officials to get more information.

The first leg of the project is from Ottawa to Montreal. The Mayor of Ottawa supports the project and wants the Ottawa HSR station to be at Union Station. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/sutcliffe-backs-downtown-station-for-high-speed-rail-9.7065062#:~:text=Mayor%20Mark%20Sutcliffe%20wants%20Alto%27s,during%20a%20city%20council%20meeting. There was no notification from the City of Ottawa, that I am aware of, about the in-person public consultations in Ottawa, at the end of January.

I am still trying to get my head around this. I trust you will find this as worrisome as I do!

Please consider signing MP Scott Reid's petition opposing the High-Speed Rail project:

https://www.ourcommons.ca/petitions/en/Petition/Search?View=D&type=&keyword=38333&sponsor=&text=Scott%20reid&RPP=20&order=Recent&Page=1&category=Open

This just in (March 24, 2026) - a map of the corridor that you can actually read. Why couldn't Alto have done this?  This didn't work on my mobile but works wonderfully on my laptop. Kudos to those who developed it.

https://highspeedrailmap.ca/

The CLA is a chapter of the Ontario Landowners Association. We believe in the right of private property owners to use, profit from, and dispose of (sell) their property.

We also believe in the “do no harm to your neighbour” principle. Also described as a tort of private nuisance, this is caused by a person doing something on their own land which they are lawfully entitled to do but that becomes a nuisance when the consequences of their act extend to the land of their neighbour.

We believe the risks of harm from a BESS to people, animals and property are very real and that these types of installation should only be considered for industrial areas.

Therefore, we do not support the proposed site for the BESS on Marchurst Road, also known as the South March BESS.   

Many landowners bought into the promise of wind turbines during the McGuinty/Wynne government in Ontario. Reports of contaminated wells and health issues from those living in proximity to wind turbines are numerous and largely go unaddressed. As a result, many of those communities have become “Unwilling Hosts”. As of September 2024, 159 communities (mostly rural) have passed resolutions to say they are not willing to host new industrial wind power sites.

If we must have BESS, let’s get it right and ensure they are in industrial areas such as the already approved Trail Road BESS.

We look forward to attending Evolugen’s open house on February 23 in Dunrobin and encourage others to attend as well.

Carleton Landowners Association

A Chapter of the Ontario Landowners Association

www.ontariolandowners.ca

https://www.rightsprobe.org/read/in-canada-aboriginal-title-has-become-a-constitutional-threat?utm_source=Energy+Probe+Research+Foundation%27s+News+Week&utm_campaign=519270e175-Energy+Probe+in+the+News+-+Jan+9_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_04507514da-519270e175-25616049&mc_cid=519270e175&mc_eid=d558416241

In a recent article published January 22^nd in the Eganville Leader, it spoke of Whitewater Council bringing in new regulations for recreational trailers.  Whitewater Twp has a bylaw where anyone that owns a recreational trailer and parks it on their private property, will be subject to paying a permit fee of $300 per year.  They’ve had this bylaw in place since 2019 and neither the previous council, nor the current one have done anything to remove it ….. even though it is ILLEGAL.  As stated in the paper, initially the licensing fee was $100 annually but have since increased it to $300.  Since the licensing program began, the average number of 21 trailers has brought in an annual revenue of $6300.  The number of licenses granted rose from 13 the first year to 24 in 2024.  They used to allow a 10- day exemption but have decided to remove that exemption where they expect to capture more trailers which will see an increase in the number of permits issued.  In my opinion, this bylaw is unlawful, because no where in the Municipal Act is it written that ANY municipality have the authority to charge a fee for a permit (which is basically a license) to anyone who owns a recreational trailer and keeps it on their private property.  So why does this municipality or any other municipality approve such a bylaw?  It would appear because it is well known that the general public don’t read the Legislation, and therefore, would not realize if the bylaw was legal or not.  On that assumption, it then becomes an easy cash-cow source of revenue for the municipality.  So, what does that say about our elected municipal councillors – the ones we elect, whose job is to protect the interests of the residents, the property owners? Have they turned their backs on the residents to support basically taking money from them just to prop up  poor financial management in the operation of the municipal corporation ?  Sec. 5 in the Municipal Act states: “The power of a municipality is exercised by its council”.  That means the municipal council is responsible for the actions of the municipality.

In their bylaw, they write:   WHEREAS Sec 164 of the Municipal Act authorizes municipalities to prohibit or license trailers located in the municipality “.  This,  naturally implies they have the authority, BUT that is not the case.  It is very misleading.  Sec. 164 is only Part of the section for LICENSES in the Municipal Act. The entire section is from  Sec 150 to 165.  When you read the entire section, it clearly states that the municipality ONLY has authority to issue “business licenses. Sec. 150  provides the Definition for this entire section of Licenses which states:  “business” means any business wholly or partly carried on within a municipality even if the business is being carried on from a location outside the municipality and includes,

                (a) trades and occupations,

                (b) exhibitions, concerts, festivals and other organized public amusements held For profit or otherwise,

                (c) the sale or hire of goods or services on an intermittent or one-time basis and the activities of a transient trader,

                (d) the display of samples, patterns or specimens of goods for the purpose of sale or hire

Section 164 that the Municipality refers to in their Bylaw for Trailers,  applies to “business licensing”. This section would pertain to such trailers that would be involved (b) exhibitions, concerts, festivals and other organized public amusements held for profit or otherwise on municipal property, (c) the sale or hire of goods or services on an intermittent or one-time basis and the activities of a transient trader on municipal property, (d) the display of samples, patterns or specimens of goods for the purpose of sale or hire on municipal property.

A permit is similar to a license in that both are legal documents issued by a government agency allowing you to do something specific, but a permit usually has a more limited scope and is often temporary, while a license typically grants broader permission for a longer period of time.  Charging a private property owner an annual fee of $300 for a permit to allow him the right to park his recreational trailer on his private property is a violation of the Municipal Act in these THREE specific instances:

1. A municipality enacting a municipal bylaw demanding that a private property owner apply and obtain a license to camp, have a trailer or tent, or have visitors, etc., is making a demand to impose a "tax" which is not allowed under section 17.1 (a) of the Municipal Act

                SECTION 17 -- Restrictions, financial matters

                17 (1) Sections 9, 10 and 11 do not authorize a municipality to,

                (a) impose taxes;

                (b) borrow or invest money or sell debt;

                (c) incur debt without borrowing money for the purpose of obtaining long-term financing of any capital undertaking;

                (d) enter into agreements for the purpose of minimizing costs or financial risk associated with the incurring of debt;

                (e) make a grant or a loan;

                (f) take any other prescribed financial action;

                (g) become a bankrupt under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada); or

                (h) as an insolvent person, make an assignment for the general benefit of creditors under section 49 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) or make a proposal under section 50 of that Act.

(Section 9 above explains that a “municipality only has the capacities, rights, power and privileges of a natural person for the purpose of exercising its authority under this Act or any other Act”… meaning their powers are limited to certain restrictions.  Sections 10 and 11 are the sections that authorize municipalities to make bylaws based on certain rules.)

2. PART III – SPECIFIC MUNICPAL POWERS

      SECTION 50 – Restrictions, motor vehicles: 

               A municipality does not have power to pass a by-law establishing a system of permits for motor vehicles or trailers, as those terms are defined in the Highway Traffic Act, similar to the system under Part II of that Act. 

Under the Highway Traffic Act a trailer and motor vehicle are defined as:

“trailer” means a vehicle that is at any time drawn upon a highway by a motor vehicle, except an implement of husbandry, a mobile home, another motor vehicle or any device or apparatus not designed to transport persons or property, temporarily drawn, propelled or moved upon such highway, and except a side car attached to a motorcycle, and shall be considered a separate vehicle and not part of the motor vehicle by which it is drawn; (“remorque”)

“vehicle” includes a motor vehicle, trailer, traction engine, farm tractor, road-  building machine, bicycle and any vehicle drawn, propelled or driven by any kind of power,

Under Part II of the Highway Traffic Act if there is a requirement for insurance then a by-law demanding another license to use one's trailer would infringe on the insurance that is required in the Highway Traffic Act. There is also the property owner's insurance that would be exempted by these licenses and permits. This in turn would become the responsibility of the Municipal corporation to supply an insurance bond as it would be the municipality that was granting permission to the private property owner, under the municipal camping/trailer/tent by-law. An insurance company is not responsible for a policy if a municipality is engaged in allowing an unlawful act to be licensed and made lawful.

3. And lastly, as stated in Sec 14 of the Municipal Act …. this Bylaw is without effect when it conflicts with a provincial or federal Act. The Highway Traffic Act is a provincial Act.

Hopefully, other municipal council members will read this and then review their own bylaws.  Whitewater council members have already been made aware of this information.  Will they review this bylaw and then repeal it?  Who knows.  But, it would seem, there are at least 24 property owners who have been wrongly forced to pay a license fee of $300 for how many years because they happen to own a recreational trailer.  They will learn of this information as well.  Will this municipal council do right by them and reimburse them; or will they just ignore this and continue on as they have been?  Perhaps these 24 trailer owners will seek legal action against the municipality.   I guess this all depends on the municipal council members, themselves.  Afterall, the power of this municipality is exercised by this council.    

MUNICIPAL ZONING BYLAWS WHO’S ACTUALLY WRITING THEM

For the past few weeks, I have been going through a municipal zoning by-law.  During this process I have been amazed and, well, to be honest, disgusted at what I have been finding.  I cannot, for the life of me, understand how anyone, who cares for their fellow human being, can come up with some of the things put into these by-laws.

During this process, though, I have found that this one municipality isn’t the only municipality with the same by-law.  The unlawful definitions are the same – to the extent that, in some instances, they are word for word.  Then there are the dictates, of houses having to be built all the same distance from the centre-line, in the road, all for “aesthetic” purposes.  This is not what zoning by-laws are for…

The next dictate - all rural properties are to be zoned agricultural without even understanding the property-tax implications of this dictate, which is regulated under the Municipal Act – not the Assessment Act (or in Ontario MPAC – and yes planners are supposed to know and understand the Mun. Act but most don’t).  There is also the issue that there will be no severances or consents allowed as this is part of the failed plan to restrict all homes to the urban areas – not to protect farm land as they try to convince people of.

Dictate - shipping containers are not allowed – but if one has a farm – a person can have one; to use shipping containers to construct a home one must receive a special permit. Quite laughable really…

Dictate - all development must be high density in urban settlement areas and not in the rural areas.  This is under the arbitrary mandates of someone somewhere who hasn’t a clue as to what it means to the mental health of people – nor the prosperity of the various municipalities and/or the residents of these communities.

It seems, from reading various zoning by-laws, that this is merely the cookie-cutter approach to planning.  No rhyme or reason and most certain not law, either.

Unknown to many there have been a multitude of reports on how to govern the various provinces.  These reports lay out that the rural areas should merely be allowed to die.  The authors of these reports lay out that the small, rural communities cannot afford to have the qualified administrative staff and therefore services should be denied.  We wonder why so many small schools have been shuttered not to mention the hospital emergency departments that are being closed.  It seems way too much priority has been placed on those who can push paper which has led the various provinces and municipalities to become anti-productive.

So many of the administrative staff merely work to create paper – nothing that really contributes to the well-being of the residents or for the betterment of their communities.  They impose their careless mandates all to the detriment of society and the rural culture.  One merely has to read the report “Small, Rural and Remote Communities:  An Anatomy of Risk” to see that “cancel culture” is the mandate of so many.  Remember these reports were done by those involved with “MODELS OF GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE AT THE LOCAL LEVEL,” by Enid Slack, etc.,

“…The project is being carried out by the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC), working in conjunction with experts in academia, government and the non-governmental sector in both Canada and the Russian Federation.”

The problem with all of this is that these reports are authored by “urbanists” who do not understand the rural life-style.  People move to the rural areas for a certain way of life or they have lived in their communities for generations.  And yet, the authors who write these reports, and perhaps even the by-laws, do not have any real knowledge of rural life.  That is why so many things are failing and that is why our country has gone from a democracy to a dictatorship (history repeating we just don’t know it) – we haven’t been paying attention nor are we becoming informed.  We all need to be reading these reports and understanding that these reports are recommending the demise of an entire way of life. 

All of this is up to you but suffice it to say – who actually is writing the by-laws we are dealing with?  It shouldn’t/couldn’t be someone who is a local because if it is they are actually destroying, not only the people’s rights and life-styles, but their own.  They aren’t doing anything outstanding – they are doing things they should be ashamed of – but maybe they don’t have the ability to know the difference.

It truly is really up to you and your elected officials, but ask yourself - do you want your way of life “gone” or do you want a way of life that is of your choice? Again – it’s up to you…it’s all there you merely have to read, become informed and stand up using your voices…the buck starts and ends, actually, with YOU…

This article contains information about the process by which the Crown issued crown land patent grants to early settlers in Canada. Also presented is evidence used in court filings concerning a constitutional question regarding Crown Land Patents.

Thanks to Joan and Tony for a stimulating and informative presentation and for sharing this information.

Thanks to all of you who attended and participated in our AGM.

Please see attached document.

See the story here Wainfleet, Ont. home owners are at risk of having their homes seized— for renting their properties (youtube.com)

Meanwhile, in Ottawa, just outside the rural village of Fitzroy Harbour, the community is fighting the potential construction of a large BESS installation. Turned down by the City of Ottawa last year, the Province nevertheless gave the company Evolugen the go-ahead to come back to council and try again to get approval. The community says the location chosen, just outside the village, is the wrong place to build. Read more here Alliance to Protect West Carleton - Fire Suppression and Preparedness.