Where to get a copy of your Crown Patent

Where to get a copy of your Crown Patent To get a copy of your Crown Land Patent, apply to the Ministry of Natural Resources Crown Land Registry Offic...
Author: Arleen Brown
6 downloads 1 Views 190KB Size
Where to get a copy of your Crown Patent To get a copy of your Crown Land Patent, apply to the Ministry of Natural Resources Crown Land Registry Office in Peterborough. Here is a link to their information page: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/lr/@mnr/@crownland/documents/do cument/stdprod_068482.pdf. An explanation of how to apply can be found at the end of the second page. The OLA recommends asking for a certified copy which is usually $50. Crown Land Patents are legal documents, and combined with a title search and other land registry documents such as surveys and easements, are an essential tool for protecting your rights to your property. The Patent is the root of title; the title search will reveal what other transactions took place after the land became privately owned. Lawyers in Ontario are only required to do a 40-year title search when property is transferred from one owner to another. To avoid future surprises, it may be wise to carry the search back to the Patent. This is the only way you can be assured that you are aware of all easements or covenants attached to your property. For a more detailed discussion of Crown Patents, see Crown Land Grants and Letters Patent, below. There are a number of institutions in Ontario that hold land records, including copies of Crown Land Patents. Library and Archives Canada in Ottawa has some records. See http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/022/022-912-e.html for more information. Another option is the Archives of Ontario in Toronto. They apparently have copies of land registry documents that you can view and copy, including the Crown Land Patents and they have a reading room where you can do your own research. Their website is at http://www.archives.gov.on.ca/en/tracing/the_records.aspx and is geared towards genealogy searches. Scroll down to the heading Land Records to see the information on Crown Land Patents. The option that the OLA is most familiar with is to apply to the Ministry of Natural Resources Crown Land Registry Office in Peterborough. Here is a link to their information page http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/lr/@mnr/@crownland/documents/do cument/stdprod_068482.pdf. An explanation of how to apply can be found at the end of the second page. The OLA recommends asking for a certified copy which is usually $50. Currently, our experience is that it takes over a year to receive your document from MNR.

Local land registry offices are another source of land records from deeds, mortgages and plans of survey and are located throughout Ontario. A list of offices can be found at http://www.gov.on.ca/en/information_bundle/land_registration/content/STEL02_165696. A land registry office is where you would go to do your title search. Records can be copied for a fee. Many of the older records are stored on microfiche and are sometimes hard to decipher.

Crown Land Grants and Letters Patent The Crown Land Grants or Letters Patent are contracts. They are based in contract law and are regulated by common law. They are a contract between the Sovereign, the heirs and successors, and the Grantee/Patentee (the property owner), their heirs and assigns, forever. A patent, it would seem, of any kind usually has a time limit and yet the Crown Land Grants/Letters Patent, in most cases, are a “forever” contract, not to be interfered with. These documents, at the time of construction, were Acts of Imperial Parliament, on the instruction of the reigning Sovereign under the Crown Prerogative, and have specific “reservations” reserved to the Crown, the Crown’s heirs and successors. These reservations can include: mines or gold, mines and minerals, navigable water-ways, white pines, etc. They are also your property rights as after 60 years of alienation and/or adverse possession from the Crown, the Queen in right of Ontario or Canada, has no right, title or interest1 in, on or to the lands/property/estate which has been removed from the Crown domain, by the Letters Patent. That is to say, the property that one owns has been alienated from the Crown Domain. This 60 year alienation/adverse possession is governed by the Nullum Tempus Act of 1769. In this act the Crown was made to set a specific time limit on how long the Crown had the authority to take the land/property back to itself to be re-granted or public use. The King, during this time, had a habit of granting land and when the landowner fell out of grace with the King, the King would simply come up with an idea and take the land back, leaving the property available for the Kings new favoured entity. As for the legislation at the time of issuance, it pertains to the reservations, as in mines and minerals. Some grants did not reserve the mines or minerals to the Crown, ergo, the mines and minerals were the property of the patentee the heirs and assigns. Based on a case in 2008, the legislation at the time of issuance of the patent was used to determine that the new purchaser would own the mineral rights to the land. There is MNR policy that explains the different reservations and one must look to the Public Lands Act for the criteria involved in new land grants. The reversal and voidance of any reservation must be to the advantage of the Grantee/Patentee as expressed in a number of court cases (Chitty on the Prerogative) and Royal Proclamations. In regards to applying for a reversal of a reservation, it would seem, he would be re-negotiating his “contract” and may become subject to the legislation of today. For this reason it may be best to side on the side of caution, people may want to rethink applying for a reversal or voidance of a reservation at this time. In regards to regulating private property, common law is the only law and has been used for centuries. Quebec is the only province in Canada that does not subscribe to Common Law based on section 94 of the British North America Act, 1867 1

Ontario (Attorney General) v. Rowntree Beach Assn., 1994 CanLII 7228 (ON S.C.)

(Constitution). Quebec legal system is based on Civil/Statute law and it is “written law” produced to regulate society. Quebec also has Crown Grants/Letters Patent and they are contracts. One explanation of this is the explanation of Fee Simple from the Guide to the Federal Real Property Act which expressed: “What is fee simple? At common law, an estate in fee simple in a parcel of land is one transferred absolutely to a person and his or her heirs, forever, without any conditions. This is the highest estate in land that can be held by a person in a common law province. The civil law equivalent of a fee simple estate is the concept of "ownership," which is the right of enjoying and disposing of an immovable in the most absolute manner. The only restriction is that no use be made of the immovable that is prohibited by law or regulation. An estate in fee simple is freely transferable by deed, will or otherwise.” Ontario is a Common Law province. This leads us to the statement in the Midland Free Press, in regards to the “Attorney General of Ontario v. The Rowntree Beach Association (1994)” where it is clearly stated: “Public "user rights" over private property only become legal rights upon a successful application to the court initiated by the Attorney General.”, and “If you don’t own it, you cannot plan for it.” Under Common Law a person cannot dirty his neighbors air, soil or water, he cannot block up the water, as the water has to flow freely down-stream for the usage of others. This has been set in Common Law as stated by Blackstone in 1768: “It is a nuisance to stop or divert water that used to run to another’s meadow or mill; to corrupt or poison a water-course, by erecting a dye– house or a lime-pit for the use of trade, in the upper part of the stream; or in sort to do any act therein, that in its consequences must necessarily lend to the prejudice of one’s neighbour. So closely does the law of England enforce that excellent rule of gospel, morality, of doing to others, as we would they should do unto ourselves.” And if a neighbor has a situation with his neighbor, he has the option of launching a tort. There is confusion as there are two types of Civil Law. One being statute law, the other being private law. Private civil law, between two people is the right to launch a case in a court of civil/private law. J. Swaigen, “The Role of the Civil Courts in Resolving Risk and Uncertainty in Environment Law” (1991): “The tort system has a number of theoretical advantages over other methods of obtaining relief. The injured person can initiate action on his own, without the need to rely on any government agency to protect his interest. He controls the choice of lawyers, medical and other scientific experts to assist him. The parties themselves or their legal advisors maintain control over the timing and choice of strategies through every stage of the negotiations. Except in the case of infants and certain persons deemed by law to be incapable of making informed judgments without assistance, the decision of the plaintiff whether to accept a

settlement offer need not be approved by any bureaucracy. Moreover, if the matter goes to trial, it is decided by an independent judiciary designed, at least in theory, to be above political or partisan pressures, and whose decisions are subject to appeal to higher courts.” The question is why haven’t we heard of the Crown Land Patent Grants and why have we not known of our rights. After you read the below it is your decision. Again this is expressed in the Guide to the Federal Real Property Act: “In addition, letters patents are still required for a more esoteric legal reason… Over the years court cases have dealt with the legal force and effect of letters patent. Therefore, we need to keep letters patent at least to have this jurisprudence continue to apply to the instruments of grant” Funk and Wagnal there definition is: “Esoteric: 1. Understood by or meant for only a few specially instructed or initiated individuals: esoteric doctrine. 2. Confidential; kept secret: an esoteric motive. – See mysterious.” They are still a contract and they are still patents and they, it would seem, are still private property rights as they involve the honor of the Crown. Without the knowledge of these documents people, through the generations, have been denied their rights and the right to use whatever means possible to defend their ownership. It had been so engrained in people that they had property and land rights, that they had become complacent and allowed themselves to be governed by legislation that did not pertain to them. They owned their land, they owned their property and unless there was a successful application to the courts, in regards to regulating the right, title or interest of the land and property, no second or third party had option of dictating to the owner of the property, including the land use conditions, unless specifically expressed in the Letters Patent. The Ministry of Natural Resources are fully aware of Land Use Conditions and as expressed from their own policy: 4.2.2 Land Use Condition Occasional patents issued after 1959 may contain land use condition authorized by section 18, to the effect of the following: “It is a condition of these letters patent that the land granted shall be used for __________ purposes only.” Typically, land use conditions have been imposed to confine the use of lands to agricultural, conservation authority or municipal purposes. Rarely, the clause may indicate that the lands shall not be used for a particular purpose.” From the MNR page in regards to Land Tenure: “Sale and Issuance of Letters Patent The Ministry of Natural Resources does not retain future options for the land and does not control use” They know that the legislators have over-stepped the law, but legislation or regulation does not have to be fair, justifiable or support anyone’s rights or freedoms, it is merely a thought, an idea or a whim of the legislator of the day. It must also be

remembered that legislation can be amended, revoked, repealed or quashed, again, by the legislator of the day, giving legislation no solid credibility. On the other hand the people that are landowners in fee simple do have their rights, established in the Crown Land Patent Grants, and now it is for them to stand up and take their legal rights back to themselves. In the Royal Proclamation of 1763 it clearly stated that it is to be to the advantage of the Grantee/patentee. It is also expressed in 1920, Attorney-General v. DeKeyer’s Royal Hotel: “

This is a fundamental principle, going back at least to Magna Carta,” , Lord Parmoor said: “Since Magna Carta the estate of a subject in lands or buildings has been protected against the prerogative of the Crown.” In 1999, the Supreme Court of Canada decided the case of Wells v. Newfoundland, Judge J. Major: “In a nation governed by the rule of law, we assume that the government will honour its obligations unless it explicitly exercises its power not to. In the absence of a clear express intent to abrogate rights and obligations—rights of the highest importance to the individual—those rights remain in force. To argue the opposite is to say that the government is bound only by its whim, not its word. In Canada this is unacceptable, and does not accord with the nation’s understanding of the relationship between the state and its citizens.” “Writing for the Court, Major J. concluded that, while Wells’ position could be terminated by statute, absent express statutory provisions to the contrary, contract law and contract remedies governed the employment relationship. Consequently, as the Crown was in breach of its contract with Wells, he was entitled to compensation by way of damages.” The government; all governments, are legally bound by contract, as expressed under Common Law, and the government on all levels, is not above the law. What must be remembered is that the Legislators also agreed to the terms of these contracts and as it was the Crown and the Legislators that created these contracts they are bound not to change the terms. The definition of the Crown Land Patent Grants, as expressed by the Guide to the Federal Real Property Act entitles the grantee/patentee rights and authority over their possessions. Quote: “The definition extended the previous definition of "grant" under the Public Lands Grants Act. The previous definition limited Crown grants to those conveying a fee simple or equivalent estate in real property.” Letters patent have been defined as "writing of the sovereign, sealed with the Great Seal, whereby a person or company is entitled to do acts or enjoy privileges which could not be done or enjoyed without such authority." I hope this clears up any ambiguity as to what the Crown Land Patent Grants are and how legislation, it would seem, does not apply to privately owned land or property. It is up to the people to stand up for their rights, exercise their rights and to instruct their elected officials as to what they will and will not accept. It is also the duty of each

individual to respect the rights that the Crown Grants/Letters Patent afford and to accept their own individual responsibility that come with those rights.