News and Updates - Ontario Landowners Association Forum

Judges Ruling Kelso V MOC

JeffKelso — Tue, 16 Jul 2024 17:02:14 +0000

After careful deliberation I have determined the
conduct of the State, that being By-law
enforcement, and the municipal law office under the
leadership of Mr. McIvor to be offensive and unfair
to the people of Clarington and their Council. The
Kraus and Kelso file has been closed six years.
The couple had been carrying on business at the
location for approximately 14 years before the
first investigation was opened and closed. Mr.
McIvor was actively aggressive, biased and
prejudicial against the couple seeing that the
reopened investigation continued by telling By-law
Officer Williams that the couple have an expanding
business and nothing Mr. Kelso has written to Mr.
McIvor deals with the problem. He gave, that being
Mr. McIvor, Officer Williams carte blanche to
continue on with the closed file against a family
who had been operating for approximately 25 years.
Officer Williams actively commensurated with a
Suzanne Clement who he had previously investigated
actively seeking information on agricultural zoned
properties storing RV’s. This was done while both
Clarington Council and regional government were
considering changes to legislation with regards to
agricultural zoned land. I have found that Officer
9.
Ruling
AG 0087 (rev. 07-01)
5
10
15
20
25
30
Williams was actively aggressive, operating in
attack mode and bias when he issued the property
standards order to clean up derelict vehicles. He
was there to investigate recreational vehicle
storage when he observed the derelict vehicles.
This did not sit well with Duncan Anderson, Officer
Williams’ immediate supervisor. Officer Anderson,
not satisfied with Officer Williams’ law
enforcement behaviour, rescinded the property
standards order.
I have concluded, based on the order being
rescinded, that Officer Williams was showing the
couple the authority he wields and how he will use
his authority to intimidate citizens. These
actions do not reflect the notion of fair play or
decency on behalf of law enforcement or senior
staff when Clarington Council and the Region of
Durham were contemplating changes to by-laws
concerning agricultural zoned properties and would
allow some properties to carry on a business. The
prosecution has argued there was clear direction
given to Ms. Kraus and Mr. Kelso from the
Municipality not to use the land for storage of
more than three RV’s because they had no legal
nonconforming status.
I have determined there was direction given by by-
law enforcement. However, it was never clear
direction that was coming from the Municipality.
The Kraus and Kelso file had been closed since
2014. Another by-law enforcement officer closed
10.
Ruling
AG 0087 (rev. 07-01)
5
10
15
20
25
30
investigations on properties carrying on the same
business prior to By-law 84-63. One officer
determined them to be legal nonconforming. Later,
direction came from the planning department to
reopen those files that were closed. It is evident
the right hand didn’t know or can’t comprehend what
the left hand is doing between municipal offices in
the community. How could it be clear to Ms. Kraus
and Mr. Kelso or any other citizen for that matter
when the municipal officers can’t figure it out?
It certainly isn’t clear to the officers.
The couple tried to get clear answers and were
given direction on how to go about the process of
getting the zoning changed as both municipal
governments were contemplating change.
Nevertheless, after Mr. McIvor, Director of
Investigative Services, corresponded with Mr. Kelso
he told “Dave” to carry on. There is a problem in
the community with RV storage and nothing Mr. Kelso
said changes anything.
It is important that by-law and legal staff be left
alone to determine when, where and how
investigations should be undertaken and charges
laid. Without that independence, how could by-law
enforcement officials and their senior managers
operate without elected officials getting in their
way, ordering them or pressuring them to stop an
investigation or start an investigation, or leave a
relative or friend alone, rescind a parking ticket,
issues regarding snow removal and garbage issues,
11.
Ruling
AG 0087 (rev. 07-01)
5
10
15
20
25
30
the list goes on and on for by-law enforcement.
Added to that is harassment about what authority
they do or do not possess, why they bother citizens
on their own property or, “Don’t you understand
that I pay your salary?” Without the independence
in their profession, doing enforcement would be
utterly impossible. I don’t think anyone would
even want the positions let alone pursue a career.
By-law officers must be treated with respect and
decency and independence.
Having said that, respect, decency and the rule of
law, or as it is commonly referred to is that no
one is above the law, goes both ways. It is
vitally important that citizens we entrust to
ensure laws are adhered to carry on their duties
with fairness, balance, decency and without bias.
There is no room to arbitrarily decide when and how
to act on enforcing by-laws using intimidation and
bias with the possibility of uprooting a family
with 25 years put into a business when by-law
officers never took an active interest in what Ms.
Kraus and Mr. Kelso were doing when by-law knew
full well what it was they were doing on their
property.
Elected Councils at two levels were in the middle
of determining a change in By-law 84-63 that would
allow business to be carried on under changes to
the regional government’s official plan with
Clarington Council following suit. The Kraus and
Kelso property can now carry on the business. By-
12.
Ruling
AG 0087 (rev. 07-01)
5
10
15
20
25
30
law enforcement officers and senior staff had a
responsibility and a duty to consider what future
legislation elected officials were contemplating as
well as the direction elected officials wanted to
take the community in moving forward as the
community grows and develops.
The laying of charges when issues regarding the
future use of agriculturally-zoned land are on the
cusp of being changed, and were changed, is
prejudicial to the family. Why bother to have
elected officials at all if senior directors,
managers and enforcement officers who possess power
and authority over citizens act with impunity in a
bureaucratic milieu where there is no
accountability to anyone but themselves?
I cannot think of an alternative remedy in this
case short of a stay. Based on the evidence and
arguments I’ve heard, a stay of proceedings is
ordered. Thank you, everyone.

Landowners fight Bylaw and win in Provincial Court

JeffKelso — Tue, 16 Jul 2024 16:56:53 +0000

Synopsis of Municipality of Clarington V Kelso and Kraus for the Ontario Landowners’ Association

The landowners of 438 Rickard Rd. Bowmanville, Heide Kraus and Jeff Kelso, purchased their property in 1996. They assumed a pre-existing outdoor storage business and small farm with a silviculture operation. Despite pre-dating the 2007 amendment to Bylaw 84-63which limits the number of units that are allowed to be stored in Prime Ag, the Municipality of Clarington refuses to recognize the land use as legal non conforming. Section 34 (9)(a) of the Planning Act prohibits municipalities from passing By-laws that would prevent the use of any land, building, or structure if it was lawfully used for such a purpose on the day of the passing of the By-law, as long as that use continues.

Despite decades operating a small local business which meets a vital need within the community, the Municipality of Clarington charged the couple with being in contravention of Bylaw 84-63. It cannot be understated how emotionally and financially devastating this process has been for the family, particularly given the concurrent stress of the COVID-19 pandemic. Ultimately common sense prevailed, and the charges were stayed by the Justice, but not after wasting tens of thousands of taxpayers’ dollars. Unfortunately, despite 438 Rickard Rd being redesignated as Employment Lands in the newly approved Durham Region Official Plan, the Municipality of Clarington is requesting an appeal of the Ontario Court Ruling. If granted the Appeal will again waste money and human resources, at the expense of Clarington taxpayers.

Below is a summary of events since Clarington Bylaw first investigated land use at 438 Rickard Rd. Bowmanville.

1) In 2010 Bylaw opened file 15259 regarding RV storage on Prime Ag at 438 Rickard Rd, Bowmanville. This file was closed in 2014 by Clarington bylaw officer T Mason. No information or explanation was given to Kelso and Kraus.

2) Beginning in the first quarter of 2020 Bylaw officer D Williams repeatedly attended 438 Rickard Rd and indicated the owners were in contravention of Bylaw 84-63.

3) October 2020 a pre-consultation meeting was held with landowners and stakeholders. Clarington planners stated that amendments to both Clarington and Durham official plans would be needed for RV storage to be legal at 438 Rickard Rd. Durham planners stated RV storage was legal on Employment lands only.

4) January 2021 Mr Kelso made a delegation before Clarington Council which resulted in retention of outside consultant planners to prepare a report with recommendations for RV storage in Clarington. The Clarington Agricultural Advisory Committee was tasked with drafting recommendations on Bylaw amendments which would define the “on Farm Diversified Use” of storage in Prime Ag. The committee failed to provide a recommendation or report to council. No changes were made.

5) March 2, 2021 the Durham Region Planning and Development Committee was notified that Envision Durham, the Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Durham Region Official Plan was being released to the public and stakeholders. Settlement Boundary expansion requests were to be received by May 31, 2021.

6) March 3, 2021 Mr Kelso received a Provincial court summons for being in contravention of Bylaw 84-63.

7) Clarington Corporate Policy F14 regarding Enforcement section 5.4 (f) lists situations which may cause delay in bylaw investigation, processing, and even court action: “administration and revisions of current by-laws (e.g. research and drafting of new by-laws)”. It shall be noted that Kelso and Kraus were charged and summoned during the exact time frame in which Envision Durham was re-drawing the Settlement Area Boundaries.

8) The trial began September 2021 with the final Decision rendered May 10, 2024. Clarington was represented by Durham Region legal services, often with several lawyers in attendance. A FOI request by Kraus and Kelso revealed that Clarington paid Durham legal services $40000 per year. A specific breakdown was not provided.

9) May 2023 Durham Region Council approved Envision Durham. The Settlement Area Boundary Expansion included the redesignation of 438 Rickard Rd as Employment Lands in the Durham Regional Official Plan (DROP).

10) May 2024 the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing approved Envision Durham in draft, supporting the Settlement Area Boundary Expansion involving 438 Rickard Rd as described in 9 above.

11) The May 10, 2024 in Ontario Provincial Offenses Court, Justice MacDonald stayed the charges against Kraus and Kelso. They are now free to operate their business as they have since 1996. Of the Municipality of Clarington’s staff, Justice MacDonald wrote: “Why bother to have elected officials at all if senior directors, managers and enforcement officers who possess power and authority over citizens act with impunity in a bureaucratic milieu where there is no accountability to anyone but themselves?”

12) May 29, 2024 Kraus and Kelso received a notice of Appeal from the Durham Region lawyer, listing the Municipality of Clarington as the client. As of July 2024, the court has not agreed to hear Clarington’sAppeal.

13) Kraus and Kelso submitted FOI requests and sent email to the CAO Legislative services (Mr Maciver) and the CAO (Maryanne Dempster) requesting clarity regarding the appeals approval process in general, or their case specifically. No pertinent information was provided. Kraus and Kelso do not know which staff directed the Appeal on behalf of the Municipality of Clarington.

14) As of July 2024, the elected municipal councillors have not been formally informed of or consulted on the matter.

15) The Municipality of Clarington continues to review its Official Plan. On its website Clarington states its updated Official Plan (OP) must conform with the new DROP and the Province’s policies and legislation; therefore the Clarington OP when complete must include the same Settlement Area Boundary Expansion as the DROP.

16) Given the imminent changes to the Clarington OP and the fact that it MUST conform with the DROP, the prospect of a successful Appeal is low.

17) Taxpayers need to be aware of money and human resources being spent on this matter, ostensibly without oversight or knowledge of elected officials.

Heide Kraus and Jeff Kelso

Updated Wetlands Mapping Stopped

ShirleyDolan — Mon, 08 Jul 2024 17:19:14 +0000

Message from the Ministry of Natural Resouces as reported by CBC on July 8, 2024:

The Province has instructed Rideau Valley Conservation Authority, Raisin River Conservation Authority, and South Nation Conservation to permanently stop their implementation plans regarding their wetland policy and mapping updates. That was never the intention of the regulatory changes.

The intent of the regulation is to standardize conservation policies across Ontario that focuses on key improvements including; setting common service standards, exempting certain low-risk activities from permits (like building sheds and docks), and requiring all conservation authorities to publish annual performance reports for transparency and improvement.

Read the article here Province orders conservation authorities to drop wetlands mapping plans | CBC News

Updated Wetlands Mapping "Paused"

ShirleyDolan — Sat, 29 Jun 2024 17:00:10 +0000

The last couple of weeks have been very busy for the Carleton Landowners Association and the Navan Landowners Committee as we tried to make sense of the updated wetlands mapping announced by the Rideau River, South Nation, and Raisin River Conservation Authorities. Farmers Forum put it best: "Watershed authorities unleash provincial sneak attack on dry, wooded land — redesignating as wetlands".

As comments came in on Facebook, we heard about septic beds, roads, and new developments being included in the maps. Many designated areas were dry, according to the landowners who were given until July 11 to object to the mapping. It just didn't make sense.

Landowners contacted their conservation authorities and provincial MPPs and we are happy to say that the mapping exercise was stopped by the Ministry of Natural Resources. Not before a lot of worry and angst on the part of landowners. Two of the three scheduled meetings took place before the Ministry stepping.

Thanks again to Farmers Forum for spreading the word. https://farmersforum.com/watershed-authorities-unleash-sneak-attack-on-dry-wooded-land-redesignating-as-wetlands/

Stay tuned. We have a feeling this is not over yet.

Thorold, Ontario, pulls out of UN-affiliated climate program

ShirleyDolan — Sat, 29 Jun 2024 16:38:33 +0000

For the first time ever, a municipality has pulled out of the United Nations ICLEI Partners for Climate Protection program. Bravo to Thorold council for their brave decision and the residents/delegates that helped council come to this decision. Bravo also to Maggie Hope Braun and her KICLEI crew for their tireless work in promoting a break with ICLEI.

Thanks also to Farmers Forum for reporting this historic moment. https://farmersforum.com/have-globalist-tentacles-ensnared-your-township-thorold-pulls-out-iclei/