New Series of Reports on Government Regulations Controlling Private Property by Jeff Bogaerts

Jeff Bogaerts
Jeff Bogaerts

The Ontario Landowners Association (OLA) is beginning a series of reports from landowners affected by government regulations of their land. Government continues to remove Property Rights from Private Landowners and restrict the usage of their land. 

The incursion of Conservation Authorities into Private Farms is beginning, and the OLA takes the position that this interference is unacceptable by an organization that is not trained, has no authority, interferes in OMAFRA and exceeds their original Legislative mandate of 1936. 

Reference Material for this case.

Conservation Authorities: The Legislator’s Intent – Ontario Landowners Association | Ontario Landowners Association 

Conservation Authorities Conservation Ontario: Redundant & Grasping for Power – Ontario Landowners Association | Ontario Landowners Association 

Investigative Case File # LCMM01070221-1

This case is located in Eastern Ontario, Lanark County, Town of Mississippi Mills, West of Ottawa. The Town of Mississippi Mills was incorporated on January 1, 1998, by amalgamating the Town of Almonte with the Townships of Ramsay and Pakenham.

This case involves a working farm of approximately 100 acres. The current owner has been living on and working the farm for decades. A decision was made to determine if it was time to retire and a Real Estate agent was contacted to determine a sale price.

Conservation Authority Act:

The owner was informed by the Real Estate agent that approximately 10 acres of land had been designated a “wetland” by the Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority (“MVCA”). This designation would be a detriment to the sale price of the farm.

There was no communication by the MVCA to the property owner of the following,

  1. When was the designation was made?
  2. Who made the designation?
  3. Who authorized it?
  4. Who entered the land to determine the location?
  5. Who Trespassed and how?
  6. Why was it made without the permission and knowledge of the property owner?
  7. Compensation for the loss of land use to the owner by MVCA has NOT been made.
  8. Property taxes have NOT been reduced.
  9. Property taxes have NOT been rebated since the designation.

This is a Province wide, disrespectful, and unacceptable behaviour by Conservation Authorities (“CA”), to remove the Property Rights of Private Landowners and to interfere in their ownership and use of land.

The CA’s are now moving to regulate and interfere in the operation of Private Farms. In one incident, the CA deemed the removal of tree stumps as, “site grading”, a violation of the CA Act.

CA’s must not be allowed to interfere in Farm management. By interfering and regulating, they put our food production and supply system in grave danger. Government is beginning to regulate food production and history has recorded how successful government food regulations were in Russia.

The “Taking of Land” by government, when passing restrictive regulations, by-laws and designating land without permission and/or consultation of the Landowner, is a behaviour that one begins to contemplate what the underlying reasons really are for controlling Private Land.

The land is removed from your use, although not your ownership. You are still required to pay full property taxes and if you make application to MPAC for property tax reduction, you pay a fee and may or may not have your taxes reduced. You may be required to obtain a CA permit to use your land, and this would require permit fees. It may also require numerous and expensive engineering plans, environmental plans and/or endangered species risk assessment and possibly other plans. All of which are done at your own expense with no guarantee that a permit will be issued.

When you investigate the way that your property has been designated, how your Property Rights have been removed from use, how government has implemented permit requirements, land designation, regulations, control factors, fee payment, environmental plans and so on, this is not a random set of events, but a co-ordinated effort to control Private Land and thereby remove it from Private Use but not Private Ownership. This allows government to claim they have done nothing wrong, and that the owner retains full ownership … provided that the owner adheres to all the “rules” government has put in place.

This behaviour by government is unacceptable, irresponsible, disrespectful, unethical, and immoral. Some people have stated that this borders on Fraud, which remains to be proven. I would strongly suggest that we are moving in the direction of a Socialist/Communist/Marxist ideology, where Democracy, the rule of law and the rights of the individual are being eroded and replaced with, “for the public good”.

The question is, who’s public? What public? This phrase, “for the public good”, has historically failed throughout the centuries and will always fail when government tries to implement it.

The only phrase that will work for everyone, everywhere and forever is …

“when the rights of the individual are protected … then the rights of everyone are protected”

CA’s have no authority to designate Private Land without the permission and agreement of the owner. CA’s can designate their own land or land where they have entered into agreements with property owners, but not when the Private Landowner has not authorized it.

Read the following sections of the Conservation Authority Act.

Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27 (

Part V

Objects, Powers and Duties

Section 20 – Objects of the CA

Section 21 – Powers of authorities

These sections give CA’s their authority, and nowhere does it say that CA’s can designate Private Land without the consent of the Owner.

Drainage Act:

A Municipal Drain crosses this farm. Under the Drainage Act, municipalities have responsibility for maintenance of the Drain. This includes Mississippi Mills.

It is interesting to note, that the area of the designated wetland on the farm, is in the same area as the Municipal Drain. Is there a coincidence that the maintenance of the drain and a designated wetland are in the same area? I personally do not believe in coincidence.

In addition, there have been several homes built around the boundaries of the farm and some of the water from the homes is draining onto the farmland. There is also a question as to whether the road ditches were upgraded for water flow to accommodate the additional traffic and homes in this area.

If the unspoken direction of CA’s is to increase wetland wherever they can find it, rather than to protect people and property from flooding, as Queens Park and the Legislatures Intent of 1936 mandated, then designating land as wetland and not ensuring good drainage will create artificial wetlands. When artificial wetlands are created, the property owner is required to spend their time and money to hire experts to prove the wetland does not exist.

The farm owner is currently investigating the MVCA designation of wetland on the farm and the maintenance history logs of the Municipal Drain by Mississippi Mills.

An update to this Case File will be available as new evidence becomes uncovered.

Jeff D. Bogaerts

YouTube Ontario Landowners Association – YouTube
Facebook Ontario Landowners Association – Home | Facebook
Fix The Law