| “No free man is to be arrested, or imprisoned, or disseised, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any other way ruined, nor will we go against him or send against him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.” Magna Carta, Clause 39, 1215, modern English translation |
Eight Hundred Years — and a Broken Promise
In 1215, at Runnymede, England’s rebel barons compelled King John to place his seal upon a charter that would influence the development of the rule of law for centuries. Clause 39 of Magna Carta declared that no free man was to be arrested, imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed, exiled, or otherwise proceeded against except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. The protection was limited in its original medieval application, but the principle it expressed was enduring: government power must operate according to law, rather than the arbitrary will of those who govern. Over time, that principle helped shape the legal protections against unjustified interference with liberty and property that remain fundamental today.
Eight hundred years later, that boundary is being erased, not by a king, but by municipal bylaw officers. Not in medieval England, but on Ontario farms. Today, rural landowners across this province are receiving cease and desist orders, inspection notices, and provincial charges, not for any act of violence, fraud, or theft, but for harvesting trees on land that they own. Land that was conveyed to their families in fee simple by a Crown Patent. Land on which the trees are their property, as much as the corn in the field or the wheat in the bin.
This is the story of how Ontario municipalities are overreaching their lawful authority, what the law actually says, and why the Ontario Landowners Association is fighting back.
The Core Problem: Municipalities Regulating What They Do Not Own
Across Ontario, municipalities have been passing tree cutting bylaws, municipal ordinances that purport to tell a private property owner what they may and may not do with trees growing on their own land. On the surface, these bylaws are presented as environmental stewardship. But look closer, and the picture changes dramatically.
Consider what these bylaws actually demand: that a farmer, who owns the land, who pays taxes on the land, whose family may have worked that land for generations, must apply for a permit before harvesting a tree. That is to say: before harvesting a crop. Because that is exactly what trees are on a working farm. They are a crop. They were planted, or they grew naturally, on private agricultural land. They are rooted in soil that is privately owned. And they are subject to harvest for timber, firewood, land clearing, crop expansion, or any other legitimate agricultural purpose.
The absurdity deepens when you consider how the land came to be owned in the first place. The Crown Patent, the original Letters Patent issued by the Crown, now embodied in Canada by His Majesty King Charles III, conveyed the land into private ownership. It conveyed the soil. It conveyed most mineral rights. And it conveyed everything growing upon it. The Crown Patent did not say: “Here is your land — except for the trees.” When a municipality passes a bylaw requiring a permit to harvest those trees, it is effectively claiming a public interest in something that was already privately conveyed. It is reaching into your title.
This is not stewardship. It is appropriation, it is expropriation, dressed in green language.
The Legal Hierarchy Municipalities Must Respect
Canada’s legal system assigns different powers to different levels of government. Municipalities are not independent or sovereign governments. They are created by the Province of Ontario and exercise powers granted through the Municipal Act, 2001 and other provincial legislation.
Section 135 of the Municipal Act, 2001 gives municipalities authority to regulate or prohibit the injuring or destruction of trees. It also allows municipalities to require permits and impose conditions. That authority is real, with limitations.
The same section connects municipal tree regulation to the Forestry Act. For upper-tier tree bylaws, the word “woodlands” takes its meaning from the Forestry Act. Municipalities regulating trees in woodlands must also have regard to “good forestry practices” as defined in that Act.
The Forestry Act defines “forestry purposes” to include the production of wood and wood products. It defines “good forestry practices” as the proper implementation of harvesting, renewal, and maintenance activities appropriate for forest management. In plain language, provincial legislation recognises that trees may be harvested and renewed as part of a productive forestry operation. Harvesting is not the same as destroying or cutting.
The distinction between Harvesting versus destroying or cutting is important on a working farm.
The Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998, commonly called the FFPPA, defines an “agricultural operation” to include a Silvicultural operation carried on in the expectation of gain or reward. Silviculture means the growing, managing, and harvesting of trees as a productive operation. The Act also recognises agricultural activities such as cultivating land, producing tree crops such as nuts, fruits and maple syrup, and processing farm products, including sawing for lumber, furniture, tools and firewood where it forms part of an agricultural operation.
The FFPPA separately defines a “normal farm practice.” A practice may qualify when it is conducted consistently with the proper and acceptable customs and standards followed by similar agricultural operations under similar circumstances. It may also qualify when innovative technology is used consistently with proper advanced farm-management practices.
The words “customs and standards” matter. Farming did not begin when a municipal bylaw was enacted, and normal farm practices are not invented by municipal officials. Ontario has a long and established farming culture. Farming families have cleared and cultivated land, maintained farm woodlots, harvested trees, and used wood from their farms for generations. Hardwood has supplied tool handles, furniture, buildings, fencing, fuel, repairs, and other practical farm needs. The tools and technology have changed, but the agricultural relationship between the land, its trees, and the working farm continues.
Fewer Ontarians may work directly on farms today, but that demographic change does not erase farming culture. Nor does it transfer agricultural judgment from experienced farmers to councillors or officials who may have little practical knowledge of farming. A longstanding agricultural practice does not lose its farming character merely because most of the population now lives or works away from the farm.
Ontario’s farming culture is therefore relevant when determining whether tree harvesting is a normal farm practice. The analysis must consider the history and purpose of the activity, comparable agricultural and Silvicultural operations, the products generated from the trees, the intended agricultural use of the land, and the customs and standards followed under similar circumstances.
Section 6 of the FFPPA provides the protection at the centre of this article: “No municipal by-law applies to restrict a normal farm practice carried on as part of an agricultural operation.”
It means that once tree harvesting is established as a normal farm practice carried on as part of an agricultural operation, a municipal bylaw cannot restrict that practice.
This article is not about your backyard tree maintenance. It is not about a developer clearing trees for a residential subdivision, shopping centre, or industrial site. Those activities are different legal and practical settings. This article concerns tree harvesting carried out as part of a working agricultural operation.
A municipal bylaw cannot treat every tree in the municipality as though it exists in the same setting. A backyard tree, trees removed for commercial development, and trees harvested as part of farming are not legally or practically the same.
Section 14 of the Municipal Act, 2001 provides a further safeguard.
Conflict between by-law and statutes, etc.
14 (1) A by-law is without effect to the extent of any conflict with,
(a) a provincial or federal Act or a regulation made under such an Act; or
(b) an instrument of a legislative nature, including an order, licence or approval, made or issued under a provincial or federal Act or regulation. 2001, c. 25, s. 14.
Same
(2) Without restricting the generality of subsection (1), there is a conflict between a by-law of a municipality and an Act, regulation or instrument described in that subsection if the by-law frustrates the purpose of the Act, regulation or instrument. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 10.
A municipal bylaw is without effect to the extent that it conflicts with provincial or federal legislation. A conflict also exists when the bylaw frustrates the purpose of that superior legislation.
In plain language, a municipality cannot use its tree-regulation powers in a way that defeats provincial or federal legislation protecting normal farm practices.
This does not make the entire tree-cutting bylaw unlawful. The legal interference may affect only one section of the bylaw or the way the municipality tries to enforce the by-law to a particular farming activity.
Section 273 of the Municipal Act, 2001 allows anyone to ask the Superior Court of Justice to quash the entire bylaw or parts of the by-law for interfering in a lawful farming activity.
The issue is not whether municipalities possess any authority over trees. The issue is whether municipalities are enforcing the authority they do have beyond the lawful limits given to them by provincial legislation and treating agricultural tree harvesting as ordinary tree injury or destruction.
Provincial legislation protects Silviculture as part of an agricultural farming operation and protects normal farm practices from municipal interference. Therefore, a municipality cannot ignore provincial legislation in their tree cutting by-law by calling protected agricultural tree harvesting “tree destruction”.
The FFPPA: The Legislature Has Already Spoken
The Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998, commonly called the FFPPA, reflects provincial policy: agricultural lands, agricultural operations, and normal farm practices are promoted and protected.
The Act recognises that pressures on the agricultural community can make it increasingly difficult for farmers to produce food, and other agricultural products effectively. It seeks to protect agriculture while balancing the needs of farming with provincial health, safety, and environmental concerns.
The Ontario Legislature expressly defined an “agricultural operation” to include: “an agricultural, aquacultural, horticultural or Silvicultural operation that is carried on in the expectation of gain or reward.”
The word “silvicultural” is important. It confirms that qualifying operations involving the growing, managing, and harvesting of trees can form part of agriculture. The Act also recognises cultivating land, producing tree crops, and processing agricultural products, including sawing where it relates primarily to products from the farm and forms part of the agricultural operation.
Section 6 of the FFPPA provides clear protection: “No municipal by-law applies to restrict a normal farm practice carried on as part of an agricultural operation.”
The Act does not necessarily invalidate an entire municipal tree-cutting bylaw. The bylaw may continue to operate lawfully in residential, commercial, development, and other settings.
However, it cannot be applied to restrict a protected normal farm practice merely because that practice involves harvesting trees.
When tree harvesting is a normal farm practice carried on as part of an agricultural operation, the farmer is not asking the municipality for an exemption. Provincial legislation has already determined that the municipal bylaw does not apply to restrict that practice.
The municipality cannot ignore the FFPPA by describing an agricultural harvest as tree destruction. The legal character of the activity must be determined from its agricultural purpose, context, and evidence, not solely from the wording selected by the municipal bylaw.
Forestry Act, Section 11: What It Does and Does Not Authorise
Section 11 of the Forestry Act is sometimes discussed as though it gives municipalities broad control over every tree within their boundaries. That is not what the section says.
Section 11 permits a municipality to acquire land for municipal forestry purposes, declare municipally owned land necessary for forestry purposes, plant and protect trees on municipal land, manage it, and sell or otherwise dispose of the trees growing on municipal land.
In plain language, section 11 concerns land that the municipality owns, acquires, or manages for municipal forestry purposes.
Section 11 does not, grant a municipality general authority to control agricultural operations on privately owned farmland.
Municipalities are restricted to tree management on private property by section 135 of the Municipal Act, 2001, which includes reference and limitations within the Forestry Act.
Section 135 gives municipalities authority to regulate or prohibit the injuring or destruction of trees and, in appropriate circumstances, to require permits and impose conditions.
Section 135 does not give municipalities the authority to ignore and overrule provincial protection in the FFPPA for tree harvesting on a working farm.
Municipal by-laws must be written by reading provincial legislative acts together.
The Municipal Act, 2001 grants tree-regulation powers and incorporates Forestry Act concepts of woodlands and good forestry practices.
The FFPPA recognises qualifying Silvicultural operations as agricultural operations and provides that no municipal bylaw applies to restrict normal farm practice.
Section 14 of the Municipal Act, 2001 confirms that a municipal bylaw is without effect to the extent that it conflicts with provincial legislation or frustrates its purpose.
Municipal tree bylaws should distinguish agricultural harvesting from residential tree removal and commercial land clearing. When a bylaw treats every tree alike, without accounting for provincially protected normal farm practices, the municipality risks regulating farming rather than ordinary tree injury or destruction.
Where a municipality applies its bylaw beyond the authority permitted by this combined statutory framework, the municipality may be acting ultra vires (beyond the legal power or authority granted to it). That conclusion depends on the particular bylaw, the agricultural activity, the evidence, and the governing legislation.
A municipal power to regulate trees is not an unlimited power to control farming or food production.
Before Enforcing a Tree Bylaw Against a Farm
Before issuing an order, demanding a permit, or laying charges against a farmer, municipal officials should ask:
1. Is the farm an agricultural operation carried on in the expectation of gain or reward?
2. What is the purpose of the tree harvesting?
3. Are the trees being managed or harvested as a crop or agricultural product?
4. Is the activity connected with cultivation, expansion of agricultural production, maintenance of a farm woodlot, timber production, firewood, fencing, buildings, repairs, or another practical farm purpose?
5. Is the practice consistent with customs and standards followed by similar agricultural or silvicultural operations?
6. Does the activity use proper farm-management practices?
7. Has the municipality considered the Forestry Act concepts of harvesting, renewal, maintenance, forestry purposes, and good forestry practices?
8. Would applying the municipal bylaw restrict a normal farm practice protected by section 6 of the FFPPA?
9. Would enforcement frustrate or interfere the purpose of provincial agricultural legislation?
10. Could the practical effect remove reasonable agricultural use or confer a public advantage from privately owned land?
Municipal enforcement should begin with these questions, not with the assumption that every harvested tree has been unlawfully destroyed.
The Farris Case: When Government Policy Attempts to Rewrite the Law
The problem of government officials treating administrative policy as though it was legislation is not confined to Ontario.
A current dispute in Virginia illustrates how an official interpretation can be used to create supposed government authority that the landowner argues is not found in the legislation itself.
Billy Don Farris v. Sheriff Darrell Warren concerns an 80-acre farm in Gloucester County, Virginia. Billy Don Farris, a retired brigadier general, alleges that hunters and packs of hunting dogs have repeatedly entered his private property without permission. According to the Pacific Legal Foundation, General Farris repeatedly sought assistance from the local sheriff’s office, but Sheriff Darrell Warren and his deputies maintained that Virginia’s “right-to-retrieve” law entitled hunters to enter private land to recover wandering hunting dogs. The Pacific Legal Foundation represents General Farris in an active federal lawsuit challenging that policy.
The Virginia statute permits certain hunters to follow or retrieve dogs and specified hunting birds when the chase began elsewhere, subject to statutory conditions. The disagreement concerns what that statute legally accomplishes.
General Farris and the Pacific Legal Foundation argue that the statute may prevent certain entries from being prosecuted as criminal trespass but does not create an unrestricted property right in hunters or eliminate the owner’s civil remedies.
They contend that the sheriff’s policy turns a statutory protection into an affirmative right of access. Those claims remain before the federal court.
A statute is law enacted by the legislature. A policy is an administrative approach to applying the law. Policy cannot grant powers that the legislature did not provide, remove rights that legislation preserved, or expand a limited provision into broader government authority.
“This is our policy” does not mean “this is the law”. The proper question is: What does the legislation actually authorise?
The same warning applies in Ontario. A bylaw officer’s interpretation is not legislation, and repetition of an administrative position does not transform that position into law.
Government officials must administer the provincial law that was enacted and not create a broader by-law through policy or enforcement practice.
Policy may explain how government intends to act. It does not determine whether government has the legal authority to act.
Source and case status: Pacific Legal Foundation, Billy Don Farris v. Sheriff Darrell Warren
The Leytham Case: When a Tree Bylaw Reaches Into a Working Farm
The legal principles discussed in this article are not theoretical. They are being tested in the continuing prosecution of Ontario farmers Wendell and Marjory Leytham by the City of Hamilton.
The Leythams operate a working farm in Ancaster. The dispute concerns 64 trees removed from part of the farm in 2024. The Leythams maintain that the trees were harvested to expand agricultural production. Hamilton charged each owner under its woodland conservation bylaw. The proceeding remains before the court, and the decision should not be prejudged.
The case exposes the central difference in perspective addressed throughout this article. A municipality sees trees that were cut. Farmers see trees that were harvested and agricultural land being prepared for further crop production.
The Leythams are not developers clearing trees for a subdivision, shopping centre, or industrial project. Their position is they are managing a working farm and carrying out agricultural activity protected by provincial legislation. Whether that position is established will depend on the evidence, the governing legislation, and the court’s determination.
The case presents a broader warning for municipalities. A tree bylaw should not be written or applied so broadly that it captures provincially protected farming practices or removes the practical use and benefit of agricultural land.
Annapolis Group Inc. v. Halifax Regional Municipality and St. John’s (City) v. Lynch address related property-rights concerns at the Supreme Court of Canada. The Ontario Landowners Association participated as an intervener in both proceedings at the SCC.
Annapolis explains when regulation may cross into a constructive taking. Lynch addresses compensation after constructive expropriation has been established. These cases do not mean every restriction amounts to expropriation. They warn municipalities to examine the actual effect of regulation.
Municipal councils should distinguish ordinary tree injury or destruction from harvesting carried out as part of a working agricultural operation. Calling government action “regulation” does not end the inquiry.
Background reporting: Celeste Percy-Beauregard, “Ancaster farmers face possible $100K bylaw fines in tree-cutting battle with city,” The Hamilton Spectator, 2 June 2026.
The Slippery Slope: Government Control Does Not Stop at the Farm Gate
Food prices do not begin at the grocery-store checkout. They begin much earlier, with the cost of producing food on the farm.
Ontario farmers must purchase diesel fuel, fertiliser, seed, equipment, parts, pesticides, electricity, feed, insurance, and labour before a crop is harvested or an animal is ready for market. Those costs affect whether an agricultural operation remains viable and what price the farmer must receive to continue producing.
The Ontario Farm Input Monitoring Project reported that, in April 2026, average Ontario fuel prices were 30 per cent higher and fertiliser prices were 13 per cent higher than one year earlier. Coloured diesel averaged $1.77 per litre, while average surveyed prices included $1,002 per tonne for urea and $1,309 per tonne for mono-ammonium phosphate.
Toronto City Council has approved development of a pilot involving four municipally operated, not-for-profit grocery stores. New York City is developing five publicly supported stores, while Avi Lewis, federal leader of the NDP, has advocated publicly supported non-profit grocery stores and food-distribution infrastructure.
Food insecurity is a legitimate concern. But public land, tax exemptions, fee waivers, capital funding, and subsidies do not eliminate the cost of producing and distributing food. They transfer some of that cost to taxpayers or another participant in the chain.
That raises questions extending far beyond the retail shelf: Who will supply the stores? Will Ontario farmers and independent processors have meaningful access? Will contracts recognise diesel, fertiliser, labour, equipment, transportation, and regulatory costs? Will government purchasing power place downward pressure on farm-gate prices? Will publicly supported stores compete with retailers that pay taxes, fees, and rent? Who absorbs operating losses?
These are questions about whether government intervention addresses the real cost of producing food or merely lowers the visible retail price.
A municipality cannot credibly claim to support food affordability while making it harder for farmers to expand production, manage working woodlots, harvest agricultural products, or use land for protected farming practices.
The price on the grocery-store shelf is the end of the food chain. Sound public policy must begin with the land and the farmer who produces the food.
The Supreme Court of Canada: Regulation, Constructive Taking and Compensation
The Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that land-use regulation can, in exceptional circumstances, cross the legal line into a constructive taking. The Ontario Landowners Association participated as an intervener in both Annapolis Group Inc. v. Halifax Regional Municipality and St. John’s (City) v. Lynch.
Annapolis explains the test. A public authority must receive an advantage from the property, and the regulatory action must remove all reasonable uses from the owner. The Supreme Court allowed the claim to proceed to trial; it did not finally decide that a taking had occurred.
Lynch addresses compensation after constructive expropriation had already been established. A taking presumptively gives rise to compensation unless legislation clearly removes that entitlement, although valid and independent land-use restrictions may affect market value.
Not every tree bylaw creates a taking. The warning is that a bylaw giving government or the public the benefit of private agricultural land while removing reasonable uses may create an unexpected compensation obligation.
Calling government action “regulation” does not end the inquiry. Substance and effect matter.
Know Your Rights: The Foundation That Cannot Be Taken
A municipality did not create your title, and you do not hold your farm at the pleasure of a bylaw office. A Crown Patent or other original Crown grant may form part of the historical root of title and identify what the Crown conveyed or reserved. Individual grants can differ, so the actual Patent and later title documents matter.
Crown title, provincial legislation, and municipal bylaws perform different legal functions. Provincial legislation establishes and limits municipal authority. A municipal bylaw cannot override the FFPPA, disregard the Municipal Act, 2001, or treat a protected normal farm practice as ordinary residential tree removal.
Know the history of your title. Know the agricultural purpose of your activity. Keep evidence showing how the trees and land are managed as part of the farm. If enforcement begins, obtain advice promptly and require the municipality to identify the legislation supporting its position.
Property rights are strongest when landowners understand the law, preserve the evidence, participate in public decisions, and challenge government action through lawful processes.
Trees Can Be a Farm Crop: When Provincial Farming Protection Limits Municipal Tree Bylaws
Municipalities may regulate the injury or destruction of trees, but that power is not unlimited. A tree on a working farm can exist in a different legal and practical setting from a backyard tree or trees removed for commercial development.
Silviculture can be agriculture
The FFPPA includes Silvicultural operations within the definition of an agricultural operation. Growing, managing, and harvesting trees forms part of agriculture when the operation is carried on in the expectation of gain or reward.
Normal farm practice is a separate question
The practice must also satisfy the statutory definition of a normal farm practice. Once both requirements are met, section 6 of the FFPPA provides that no municipal bylaw applies to restrict that practice.
The farmer is not seeking a discretionary municipal exemption. Provincial protection governs.
The statutes must be read together
The Municipal Act, 2001 grants tree-regulation powers. The Forestry Act supplies forestry concepts. The FFPPA protects normal farm practices, and section 14 of the Municipal Act, 2001 addresses conflict with superior legislation.
The Leytham case
Wendell and Marjory Leytham are defending an ongoing City of Hamilton prosecution concerning trees removed from their working farm to expand agricultural production. The court will decide the matter on the evidence and law.
Why municipalities must be careful
A broadly written tree bylaw can unintentionally regulate farming. Municipalities must examine the agricultural setting before enforcement and consider whether restrictions could remove reasonable uses or create a constructive-taking issue.
Document the agricultural purpose, comparable practices, history, and intended use of the land. Do not ignore an official notice, charge, or inspection demand.
STAND WITH YOUR NEIGHBOURS — What You Can Do Right Now
Reading this newsletter is not enough. Property rights are protected when informed citizens participate, ask precise questions, preserve evidence, and hold public officials accountable through lawful democratic processes.
Ontario municipal and school board elections will be held on Monday, 26 October 2026. This is the opportunity for landowners to examine how candidates understand farming, property rights, delegated municipal authority, and the limits of tree-cutting bylaws.
Get involved in your municipal election
• Confirm your voter information. If a correction is required, contact your municipal clerk.
• Attend candidate meetings. Ask whether candidates will support a farm-practice review before tree-bylaw enforcement and require municipal policies to remain within provincial legislation.
• Ask whether agricultural harvesting will be distinguished from residential tree removal and commercial land clearing.
• Request written answers and share them with neighbours, farm organisations, agricultural societies, and local media.
• Vote according to your informed judgement. The OLA does not need to tell landowners whom to support. Landowners need accurate information and candidates willing to answer for their positions.
Continue the advocacy after election day
• Contact your MPP and request clear provincial guidance on the relationship between municipal tree bylaws and the FFPPA.
• Document every order, notice, permit demand, and charge. Preserve photographs, dates, correspondence, and deadlines.
• Obtain and review the Crown Patent or other root-of-title documents, recognising that wording and reservations can differ.
• Follow the Leytham prosecution and the principles confirmed in Annapolis and Lynch. Share this article with landowners, councils, staff, and candidates.
Change begins with informed participation. If landowners want municipal bylaws to respect farming and property rights, landowners must question, verify, organise, vote, and remain involved after the election.
APPENDIX: The Cases Behind the Argument
These summaries are for information and advocacy, not legal advice. The active Leytham prosecution must not be prejudged.
A. Annapolis Group Inc. v. Halifax Regional Municipality, 2022 SCC 36
The Supreme Court confirmed a two-part constructive-taking test: the public authority must acquire an advantage from the property, and the regulation must remove all reasonable uses. A formal transfer of title is unnecessary. The Court allowed the claim to proceed to trial and did not finally decide that a taking occurred. The OLA participated as an intervener.
Municipal relevance: concern arises when a bylaw gives government or the public an advantage from private land and removes all reasonable uses.
B. St. John’s (City) v. Lynch, 2024 SCC 17
Constructive expropriation had already been established. The Supreme Court addressed compensation, confirming a presumptive entitlement unless legislation clearly removes it, while recognising that valid independent restrictions may affect market value. The OLA participated as an intervener.
Municipal relevance: regulation can carry a compensation consequence when it crosses the legal line into constructive taking.
C. The Leytham Prosecution, City of Hamilton, Ongoing
Wendell and Marjory Leytham operate a working farm in Ancaster. The prosecution concerns trees removed in 2024. The Leythams maintain that the trees were harvested to expand agricultural production. Hamilton charged each owner under its woodland conservation bylaw. The proceeding remains before the court.
The newsletter issue is whether a general municipal tree bylaw can lawfully restrict harvesting established on the evidence as a normal farm practice carried on as part of an agricultural operation. The outcome depends on the evidence, bylaw wording, legislation, and court determination.
Background reporting: Celeste Percy-Beauregard, “Ancaster farmers face possible $100K bylaw fines in tree-cutting battle with city,” The Hamilton Spectator, 2 June 2026.