The Ontario Landowners Association (OLA) has long held that education is the first line of defence for property rights. Before landowners can protect their rights, they must understand what those rights are — and just as importantly, where the limits of government authority begin and end.
As the saying goes:
“If you do not know what your property rights are, then you have no property rights.”
Across Ontario, municipalities are increasingly revisiting treecutting and treepreservation bylaws. These initiatives are often framed as environmental protection measures, and many are wellintentioned. However, good intentions do not replace legal authority, nor do they justify the erosion of private land ownership without due process, compensation, or consent.
A recent petition in Wasaga Beach calling for expanded treecutting restrictions on all private property, regardless of lot size, highlights a growing trend that landowners across the province should be paying close attention to. While the petition focuses on a single municipality, the implications extend far beyond Wasaga Beach. Similar proposals are appearing in rural, shoreline, and agricultural communities throughout Ontario.
This article is not about opposing environmental stewardship. Ontario landowners have been stewards of their land for generations. Rather, it is about maintaining the critical distinction between private land ownership, normal farming practice, and commercial development, and ensuring that municipal bylaws do not overstep their lawful boundaries.
Private Land Is Not a Development Site
One of the most concerning aspects of modern treecutting bylaw proposals is the tendency to treat private landowners as though they were commercial developers.
Commercial development occurs within a regulated planning framework. Developers enter into subdivision agreements, siteplan approvals, and negotiated conditions under the Planning Act. Environmental mitigation, tree preservation, and replanting requirements are part of that process — and they are imposed in exchange for development approvals and economic benefit.
Private landowners are fundamentally different.
A privately owned lot — whether rural, residential, agricultural, or shoreline — is not a development project. It is land held under Crown grant, protected by property and civil rights, and subject only to lawful regulation that respects ownership, use, and compensation where value is removed.
When municipalities attempt to impose permit regimes, fees, or penalties on private landowners simply for managing trees on their own property, they blur a line that should never be crossed.
Normal Farming Practice and the Reality of Land Stewardship
One of the most persistent misunderstandings in municipal policymaking is the assumption that treecutting on private land is inherently harmful or reckless. For landowners — particularly those in rural, agricultural, and mixeduse communities — nothing could be further from the truth.
Landowners manage trees as part of ongoing stewardship, not exploitation. Tree removal may be necessary for:
- crop rotation and soil management,
- drainage and erosion control,
- fence lines and access routes,
- woodlot health and selective harvesting,
- fire prevention and safety,
- or the maintenance of existing structures and infrastructure.
These activities are not speculative. They are normal, lawful, and often essential practices, particularly in agricultural and rural settings. Ontario law has long recognized this reality, which is why normal farming practice is afforded specific protection under provincial legislation.
When municipalities attempt to impose blanket permit requirements on treecutting without regard to land use, lot history, or farming practice, they risk interfering with activities that are already regulated — and protected — at the provincial level.
This is not a theoretical concern. Across Ontario, landowners have increasingly found themselves required to seek permission to manage trees on land that has been actively farmed, stewarded, or maintained for generations. In many cases, these requirements are introduced without consultation, compensation, or a clear explanation of authority.
Private Land Ownership Is Not a Municipal Asset
A second and equally important distinction must be made: private land is not municipal property.
Municipalities have clear authority to manage trees on land they own or control. They may plant, preserve, and remove trees on public property in accordance with their policies and budgets. That authority does not automatically extend to land held in private ownership.
Private land is held under Crown grant and protected by property and civil rights. Municipal bylaws do not create private ownership, and they do not extinguish it. Any attempt to regulate private land use must be:
- clearly authorized by statute,
- narrowly tailored,
- and respectful of ownership rights.
This distinction becomes especially important when municipalities propose permit regimes that reverse the presumption of lawful use — requiring landowners to justify ordinary land management decisions to municipal staff.
A permit is not a neutral administrative tool. It is a form of control. When applied to private land without compensation or agreement, it raises fundamental questions about authority, fairness, and accountability.
Why Permit Regimes Are Not Neutral — and Why Compensation Matters
Permit systems are often presented as simple administrative tools. In reality, they represent a fundamental shift in the relationship between landowner and municipality.
A permit requirement reverses the presumption of lawful use. Instead of a landowner exercising rights inherent in ownership, the landowner must now seek permission to act on their own property. This shift is not minor, and it should never be treated as routine.
When applied to private land — particularly land that is not subject to development approvals — permit regimes raise serious questions:
- Why is permission required for ordinary land stewardship?
- Who decides what is “acceptable” use?
- What standards are applied, and by whom?
- What recourse exists when permission is denied?
These questions become even more pressing when permit regimes are introduced without compensation.
Environmental Objectives Do Not Eliminate Property Rights
Environmental protection is a legitimate public objective. However, public objectives do not nullify private rights.
Ontario law has long recognized that when government action removes or significantly restricts the use or value of private property, compensation must be considered. This principle is not radical — it is foundational. Property rights are not absolute, but neither are they disposable.
Treecutting bylaws that:
- prohibit ordinary land management,
- impose fees or penalties,
- delay or deny reasonable use,
- or require replanting at the landowner’s expense,
effectively transfer public benefit onto private landowners. When that transfer occurs without compensation, it raises the spectre of regulatory taking — even if the term is avoided in policy discussions.
Municipalities cannot simply declare environmental necessity and bypass this reality. “Just because” is not a legal standard.
Stewardship Requires Trust, Not Control
Landowners are not adversaries of the environment. In many cases, they are its most consistent stewards.
Private landowners manage woodlots, wetlands, and natural features not because they are compelled to, but because they understand their land. Stewardship is rooted in knowledge, continuity, and responsibility — not permits and penalties.
Bylaws that treat landowners as potential violators rather than partners undermine this relationship. They replace trust with suspicion and stewardship with compliance. Over time, this approach discourages voluntary conservation and fosters resentment rather than cooperation.
Reasonableness matters. A regulatory framework that respects private ownership, recognizes normal land use, and distinguishes between development and stewardship is far more effective — and far more lawful — than one that relies on blanket restrictions.
What the Law Allows Municipalities to Do — and What It Does Not
Municipal councils in Ontario do not operate in a legal vacuum. Their authority is delegated, limited, and subject to superior legislation. This is especially true when municipal bylaws affect private property.
Under the Municipal Act, municipalities may regulate or prohibit the destruction or injury of trees in certain circumstances. However, that authority is not unlimited, and it must be exercised in harmony with other provincial statutes and constitutional principles.
Critically, the Municipal Act distinguishes between:
- municipal property, which councils are clearly empowered to manage, and
- private property, where authority is conditional and constrained.
Municipalities may regulate trees on private land only within the scope expressly permitted by statute, and even then, they are required to have regard for good forestry practices and existing exemptions. This includes exemptions for normal farming practice, development approvals under the Planning Act, and activities already regulated under other provincial regimes.
What the law does not support is the assumption that municipalities may impose blanket permit regimes on all private land simply because a policy objective exists.
Policy Is Not Law
In recent years, municipal discussions around treecutting bylaws have increasingly relied on policy language — climate action plans, canopy targets, sustainability frameworks. While these policies may guide municipal decisionmaking, they do not create legal authority.
Courts have been clear on this point: policy is not law. A policy goal, no matter how wellintentioned, cannot override statutory limits or property rights. Municipal councils must act within the authority granted to them, not beyond it.
This distinction matters because many proposed treecutting bylaws rely on policy justification rather than statutory grounding. When that happens, landowners are left navigating rules that feel absolute but may, in fact, be legally fragile.
Private Trees Are Not Public Assets
Another recurring misconception is the idea that trees, simply by virtue of their environmental value, become a public resource regardless of where they grow.
Trees on private land are part of private property. Unless a municipality has:
- invested public funds in planting or maintaining those trees,
- entered into an agreement with the landowner,
- or acquired an interest in the land,
it does not acquire ownership or control over those trees by default.
This is why municipalities must obtain consent to plant trees on private land. It is also why imposing permits, fees, or penalties for removing privately owned trees raises serious legal and ethical concerns.
Ownership matters. Control follows ownership — not the other way around.
Why This Matters Beyond Wasaga Beach
The petition currently before Wasaga Beach Council is not unique. Similar proposals have appeared — or are quietly being prepared — in municipalities across Ontario. What begins as a local initiative often becomes a template, shared through municipal associations, planning consultants, and policy networks.
Once adopted in one community, restrictive treecutting bylaws are frequently cited elsewhere as “best practices,” regardless of whether they have been tested, challenged, or even fully understood. Over time, this creates a patchwork of rules that steadily erode private land autonomy, one municipality at a time.
This is why early awareness matters.
By the time a bylaw reaches enforcement, the conversation has already shifted from whether authority exists to how strictly it will be applied. At that stage, landowners are left reacting rather than participating, often at significant personal and financial cost.
The Ontario Landowners Association has seen this pattern repeatedly over the past two decades. Restrictions are introduced incrementally, framed as reasonable, limited, or temporary. Over time, exemptions narrow, permit fees rise, and enforcement expands. What was once presented as a safeguard becomes a permanent constraint.
Education Before Enforcement
OLA’s role has always been to ensure that landowners understand their rights before those rights are challenged or diminished. Education is not opposition; it is preparation.
When landowners understand:
- the distinction between policy and law,
- the limits of municipal authority,
- the protections afforded to normal land use and farming practice,
- and the importance of compensation where value is removed,
they are better equipped to engage constructively with municipal councils and staff.
This engagement benefits everyone. Municipalities avoid passing bylaws that invite legal challenge. Landowners avoid unnecessary conflict. And communities retain the balance between environmental stewardship and private ownership that has sustained Ontario’s landscape for generations.
A Call for Reasonableness and Respect
Opposing overbroad treecutting bylaws is not a rejection of environmental responsibility. It is a call for reasonableness, proportionality, and respect for private property rights.
Landowners are not asking for exemption from the law. They are asking that the law recognize:
- ownership,
- stewardship,
- and the difference between managing land and developing it.
Environmental goals can and should be pursued in ways that respect these principles. When they are not, the result is not better protection — it is conflict, uncertainty, and the gradual erosion of trust between municipalities and the people who live on the land.
Conclusion: Knowing Your Rights Is the First Defence
Treecutting bylaws are not simply about trees. They are about authority, ownership, and the balance between public objectives and private rights.
The petition currently before Wasaga Beach Council is one example of a broader trend unfolding across Ontario. While framed as environmental protection, proposals that extend permit regimes and restrictions onto all private land — regardless of size, use, or history — raise serious legal and practical concerns. When private landowners are treated as developers, when stewardship is replaced by control, and when compensation is absent, the foundation of property rights begins to erode.
The Ontario Landowners Association exists first and foremost to educate. Education allows landowners to recognize when a proposal crosses from reasonable regulation into overreach. It allows meaningful engagement with municipal councils before bylaws are passed, not after enforcement begins. And it ensures that landowners are not left defending rights they were never told they had.
Environmental stewardship and private property rights are not opposing forces. Ontario’s landscape has been shaped and preserved largely through private ownership, responsible land management, and generational care. That reality must be respected in law and in policy.
As municipalities across the province revisit treecutting bylaws, landowners should remain informed, engaged, and prepared. Understanding the distinction between policy and law, between development and ownership, and between regulation and expropriation is essential.
Because if you do not know what your property rights are — then you have no property rights.
Jeff Bogaerts
President – Ontario Landowners Association