Question – If the patents mean nothing, why… by Elizabeth Marshall

Published March 1, 2015

If the patents mean nothing, then why are they still issuing them?

If the patents mean nothing, why is there a Public Lands Act?

If the patents mean nothing, then why are they mentioned in people’s deed. “Subject to any reservations in the Crown Grant”?

If the patents mean nothing, why is there section 109 of the BNA, supported by section 56 of the draft of the BNA?

If the patents mean nothing, then why did it take letters patent to constitute the 1982-83 Constitution?

If the patents mean nothing, then why do the Letters Patent of privilege still stand from 1947 for the Governor General, where it is only the sitting Sovereign, their heirs and successors who can, under section 15, revoke, amend, alter said letters patent?

If the patents mean nothing, then why is the Royal Proclamation of 1763 still alive in section 25 of the present constitution, as the R.P. of 1763 is letters patent?

If the patents mean nothing then why is it government which must pay out for land claims to the Natives? Because it’s based on the treaties and the patents of the land, and could it be because the “fee” is not in the Crown or the province/federal government, and yet they must honor these contracts?

If letters patent mean nothing, then why is it that the courts still use Magna Carta to support their positions?

If letters patent mean nothing, why is it that the legislators use Magna Carta to support their positions?

If letters patent mean nothing, why is it that the anniversary of Magna Carta is so important to Canadians and that lawyers state that it is the foundation of the British Commonwealth, considering Magna Carta is Letters Patent?

If the patents mean nothing, then why does Magna Carta still stand?

If the patents mean nothing, then where is the support for common law rights, as common law rights are protected under Magna Carta and the British North America Act…that is why we still have common law private property rights?

If the patents mean nothing, then why does the Federal government’s guide to the Federal Real Properties Act state that the patents are: a) need to be kept for jurisprudence, and b) are the writing of the Sovereign, sealed with the Great Seal?

If the patents mean nothing, then MPPs cannot be MPPs because it took letters patent for their positions?

If the patents mean nothing, then there can be no courts, there can be no judges, there can be no senators…and there can be no municipalities, conservation authorities, townships, counties, etc.?

There are a number of different letters patent, so for anyone to state that some still have authority and others do not, they don’t even understand these documents. When it is letters patent for land, and the right, title and interest which go with said patent, the Crown domain has been removed, therefore, those opposed to the patents have nothing.

If not for letters patent the entire country fails, because the Sovereign had to delegate its domain and/or administration over the “Crown/public land” and everything that went with it for the country to even be created. And during the creation of the country, granted the administrative authority over what Crown and/or public land/property, which had not already been granted/patented, and had been established as public property. That is why we still have Supreme Court cases which support the private property rights of the people, because they are protected under the BNA.

“3rd. If the king’s grants are upon a valuable consideration, they shall be construed strictly for the patentee.” – The general rule expressed by Joeseph Chitty, Esq., on Prerogative, ch.16. sec. 3. 393.

We just need to be thankful that property rights are NOT entrenched in the Charter (1982-83) or we wouldn’t have any rights at all. I hope this explains why the patents actually mean quite a bit…

SUBSCRIBE TO THE OLA NEWSLETTER