Bob Mackie vs. NEC
Some years ago, the Ontario Farmer did a story on a friend of mine. His name is Bob Mackie and he had been charged by the Niagara Escarpment Commission with using his private property for an archery range, an activity that was not allowed within the Niagara Escarpment Plan. Bob learned of land patents through the Ontario Landowners Association and decided to introduce his Crown Land Patent into his defense. Bob passed away before he was able to appeal the conviction registered against him. From that time to this, a number of friends and myself have studied the Crown Land Patents and have come to understand why they were granted and what they lawfully mean to private property.
We are preparing to launch a Constitutional Challenge based on years of researching the Rights given and granted by the Sovereigns’ of the Crown, prior to Confederation, in our land grants. These land grants became Letters Patent on accomplishing the restrictions regarding clearing and building a residence on our granted property. Once patented, our grants became the “root of title” for our property, with Rights stating for our sole and only use, heirs and assigns FOREVER. Many of the grants contained reservations, such as white pines used for ship building and mines of gold and silver and these reservations remained in the Crown. If one were to search their land title at one of the land registry offices and pay for the parcel register that is available for every property, they might note that in the top right hand corner of the printout it says, “subject to reservations in Crown Grant”. We believe that this is on the parcel register because at Confederation, as part of the BNA Act, the Crown passed the reservations to the Province for administrative purposes.
The original grants were given for valuable consideration; either labour, loyalty, military service or money. Once the conditions were removed and they became Royal Letters Patent, these 2 party contracts became Matters of Record and as such can neither be ignored nor challenged, unless an heir or assign to the original contract chose to give up his rights or the Sovereign chose to buy back the property within 60 years of granting the same. Because the patented land grants were two party contracts, the reference to the reservations of the Crown Grants is incomplete. It should refer to the entire contract, including the rights given and granted. When the Crown granted land to the settler, soldier or loyalist, the Crown alienated the land from its’ holdings and the “fee became vested in the grantee”. And the rights so granted run with the land, so regardless of who becomes the owner of all or part of the original grant, the rights remain on the land until the owner chooses to give them up.
We own our land in fee simple, meaning “the unconditional and complete and total ownership of property”, subject only to taxation, police power, expropriation and escheat. No where does it say in our grants that we are subject to Conservation controls, natural heritage designations, greenbelt plans or any other form of encumbrance the province or municipality deems appropriate for our patented property.
Our properties were granted by the Sovereign of the Crown. It was the will of the Sovereign to settle the colonies in North America and that was accomplished by granting land. So the court case we are preparing in the form of a Constitutional Challenge will seek to determine why these land grants or Letters Patent are not being respected by the municipalities, the Province or the lower courts.