Across Ontario, landowners face growing challenges to their property rights. Municipalities and counties too often behave as though private ownership is secondary to their own ambitions. Instead of proving ownership in court, some officials resort to intimidation, signage, and heavy equipment. Instead of respecting title and Crown Land Patents, they push forward with assumptions and force.
Here in Haliburton County, the Haliburton County Landowners Association (HCLA) has been standing firm. What is happening on our lakes and roads is a case study in municipal overreach — and a reminder that unless property owners push back, precedent will be set that affects everyone.
This update highlights three fronts in our current work: Project: Maple Lake, the township’s disregard for cease-and-desist letters, and the “lawfare” strategy that works both ways.
1. Project: Maple Lake – A Battle for Ownership and Respect
In 2021, the Township of Algonquin Highlands crossed a line that should concern every Ontario landowner. Without owning the property in question, township staff drove a sign into the Newby family’s land, declaring it public property. This emboldened others in the community to treat the land as if it were theirs, creating conflicts, safety risks, and even harassment.
Worse still, when the Newby family stood their ground, they were trespassed from their own property. The OPP enforced it. Charges were laid under the Trespass to Property Act. Imagine being told you could not step onto land you legally own, land that has the same Property Identification Number (PIN) as the rest of your deeded parcel.
But the Township did not stop there. They escalated. After removing the Newbys from their own property, they filed for declaratory relief in Superior Court, asking a judge to declare the property theirs. They sought an injunction against the family’s use of the land and even demanded $20,000 for shoreline remediation.
The HCLA has gone further: we have contacted the Minister of Public and Business Service Delivery directly, demanding that he exercise his authority under the Boundaries Act to conduct an application on Maple Lake. If the Township insists on claiming property it does not own, then the Crown — as the original grantor — must clarify the boundaries. This is the only fair and legal path forward, and one that serves the public interest.
This step is critical. A Boundaries Act application would settle, once and for all, where the original survey lines were, what has been submerged through artificial flooding, and what remains in private hands. It would also prevent the Township from dragging families like the Newbys through endless litigation while ignoring the Crown’s own records.
Case law reminder: In Gall v. Rogers (1993), the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed that where surveys conflict, the “best original evidence” — usually the Crown plan and patent — prevails. The Newbys’ title rests on that principle. In Palmer v. Thornbeck (1963), Ontario courts also made clear that municipal claims without proper proof of ownership cannot override registered title. Together, these cases confirm that municipalities cannot create ownership by signage or assumption; they must prove it in law.
2. Township Actions Around the County: Cease and Desist Ignored
The Newbys are not alone. Across Haliburton County, property owners are seeing similar patterns.
The HCLA has issued multiple cease-and-desist letters to the Township of Algonquin Highlands and to Haliburton County itself. The message has been simple: you cannot enter private property, widen roads, or upgrade road bases without ownership or expropriation. If the municipality does not own the land, it cannot act as though it does.
Despite those letters, the bulldozers roll on. County inspectors, working hand-in-hand with Miller Paving and its subsidiaries, have pushed forward with road-widening projects. On North Shore Road, for example, private property owners are watching forced roads — narrow paths that were never properly expropriated — being transformed into “proper” municipal roads. Gravel, base, and grading work is being done without consent, without compensation, and without respect for title.
This is not maintenance. This is expansion. And it is happening on land the municipality does not own.
The consequences go far beyond the surface. A widened road invites heavier truck traffic, creating safety concerns for families. It also establishes a false precedent, where decades of municipal trespass are used as justification for ownership claims. In effect, the Township is trying to build its case in gravel and asphalt, rather than in law.
Municipalities cannot simply behave as though private land is theirs to use. The law is clear
Case law reminder: In Annapolis Group Inc. v. Halifax Regional Municipality (2022 SCC), the Supreme Court confirmed that government actions which effectively take private land for public use — without compensation — amount to constructive expropriation. Similarly, in Canadian Pacific Railway v. Vancouver (2006 SCC), the Court found that municipalities cannot re-purpose or occupy land in a way that strips owners of use without due process. These rulings put the Township and County squarely on the wrong side of the law.
The message from the courts is the same as the message in our cease-and-desist letters: you cannot take what is not yours.
3. Lawfare is a Two-Way Street
Municipalities and their allies often weaponize the courts against landowners. We have seen this in Project: Maple Lake, and in multiple Provincial Offences Act prosecutions under the Trespass to Property Act. The strategy is clear: force landowners to spend time, money, and energy defending themselves, rather than proving municipal ownership first.
But lawfare is a two-way street.
As President of the HCLA, I have made it clear that we will not simply play defense. We will use the tools available in Ontario’s courts to hold people accountable when they cross the line. That means Small Claims Court actions.
- The Rowden Case – This involves threats, intimidation, and attempted assault against myself while I were documenting incidents on behalf of the HCLA. These actions were witnessed by OPP officers and captured on video. Accountability is being pursued directly.
- Dearden & Stanton – Survey negligence cannot be ignored. When surveyors miss key reservations in Crown Land Patents, or worse, when they create baselines that do not align with original Crown surveys, they breach their duty of care. Stanton’s 1981 survey laid a foundation of error that subsequent surveyors relied upon. Dearden compounded the problem. In Small Claims Court, surveyors cannot hide behind their profession — they must answer for negligence like any other professional.
- Ertl & Sons – By adopting flawed baselines from earlier surveys, they perpetuated damage to property owners along Maple Lake and beyond. Multiple plaintiffs, relying on shared evidence, will hold them to account.
This is Project: Retribution – a coordinated effort to ensure that the financial costs of municipal overreach, surveyor negligence, and contractor misconduct do not rest solely on the shoulders of landowners.
Case law reminder: In Lynch v. St. John’s (City) (2016 NLCA), the court emphasized that professionals have a duty of care to avoid foreseeable harm when their work impacts land titles and boundaries. And in Behn v. Moulton Contracting Ltd. (2013 SCC), the Supreme Court confirmed that individuals and groups can challenge improper use of land — and that legal challenges are a valid tool to defend property rights. These cases make clear that using Small Claims Court is both lawful and strategic.
When municipalities and professionals weaponize the courts, we will remind them that landowners have the same tools — and we will use them.
Conclusion: Property Rights Must Be Defended
Property rights in Ontario are not gifts from government. They are enshrined in patents, deeds, and centuries of common law. But rights that are not defended are rights that can be eroded.
The HCLA is setting precedents here in Haliburton County that will ripple across the province. By standing up to municipal lawfare, by issuing cease-and-desist letters, and by bringing our own cases forward, we are drawing a line. We are saying that property owners matter.
This fight is far from over. We need your help.
- Join us: Visit www.haliburtoncounty-ola.ca to become a member and stay informed.
- Support us: Our legal and advocacy work is costly. You can donate directly or through our GoFundMe campaign to help us continue holding municipalities, contractors, and surveyors accountable.
- Contact us: Share your story or ask questions by emailing kythe@haliburtoncounty-ola.ca.
- Spread the word: If you have faced similar issues with your municipality, let us know. Together, we can build a record that no court or council can ignore.
The road ahead will not be easy, but as long as landowners stand together, the township and county will learn that overreach comes at a price. There is strength in numbers.