Halton Conservation Authority v. Jean and Peter Thomas

Halton Conservation Authority v. Jean and Peter Thomas

The result of Jean and Peter loosing this case would result in fines and penalties in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Fines ($20,000) removal order ($125,000) legal costs and the prosecution will now be seeking there costs .

Back in 2007 Jean and Peter purchased their dream home on 22 acres out in the country near Milton, Ontario. Much of the land was a forest that opened up to a home with a small barn that allowed them to have a few horses. In 2013, they decided to build a riding ring for their horses and were almost done when the Halton Conservation Authority came on their property and took control of the development.

Unknown to Jean and Peter, Halton Conservation Authority had changed their regulations, without the knowledge of property owners and without any public oversight, so that all properties that were within 120m or 370 ft from any waterway or wetland were suddenly controlled by Halton Conservation. In the Burlington area this automatically transferred massive areas of private property to the control of Halton Conservation.

For Jean and Peter this suddenly meant that Halton Conservation now claimed control over approx. 80% of their 22 acres of property.

Jean Thomas states, “It’s been a long stressful journey on ourselves and our family. We have come so far doing this financially alone, with your help we will keep on fighting for our rights. We are standing up for all the wrong doing that conservation have done to so many people where there homes and land have been devalued and many times expropriated. This has to stop.  Please support us and help us stay strong. We have to win this it matters to us all. We must set a precedent. We can not loose for all our sake.”


From our Facebook group post: Nov 1, 2019

Earlier today, I posted on Jean and Peter Thomas….they appeared in court with their lawyer and a lot happened, but I am quite stuck on a single aspect of the appearance. I may be somewhat misrepresenting the facts here, but this is what I understood from part of the proceedings.
Apparently, the lawyer for the Conservation Authority made an 11th hour offer of some sort to the Thomas’s and they declined. Fair enough. But it seemed from what was presented in court today was that the offer, being with prejudice, was attached to an email that was without prejudice, and Mr. Jull, attorney for Conservation introduced the letter in what seemed to be a plea to the judge indicating todays appearance should not have proceeded if the Thomas’s had only accepted his offer. This may have been his way of saying he should get costs awarded for today…BUT…does the without prejudice email umbrella the letter…should he have been able to disassociate the two…I’d love to hear what others have to say about this single aspect of today’s proceedings.
As for their lawyer, young and energetic and certainly held his own! His name is Daniel Ciarabellini.