Keeping Financially Healthy During Covid-19 with Maria Rekrut on All Things Real Estate, July 02, 2020 at 8:00 pm EST. Maria Rekrut is a long time real estate investor who has seen many ups and downs in the economy since 1982, when she started her first business and has always made “Lemonade out of Lemons”. https://youtu.be/BwwyD5f0154
CANADIANS BEWARE YOU WILL NO LONGER OWN YOUR OWN PROPERTIES!
Homeowners warned private property may be in doubt following BC court’s Indigenous ruling
There’s a really great and startling article that all Canadian Home Owners need to read about your property rights!! Share this with all home owners you know.
Cheers, Maria
Hundreds of Richmond, British Columbia, homeowners have been warned their private property could be jeopardized by a recent court ruling granting Aboriginal title to the Cowichan Tribes.
There’s a great article I found on Substack that I feel every Canadian needs to read. Thanks to 🇨🇦CANADARISING🇨🇦 for having the courage to share this article with all of the Canadian Citizens who are awake and will never go back to sleep!!
Mark Carney will do anything to transform Canada into a WEF wet dream — even if it means moving temporarily to the centre-right just long enough to win the majority he needs to finish the job.
Once that power is secured, watch how fast he pivots back to the far left.
Ruining Canada to Save His Reputation
Carney’s Net-Zero obsession isn’t about Canada’s future — it’s about protecting his own legacy. It’s like taking over a century-old, wildly successful company and “restructuring” it into a venture that might take 5 to 20 years just to break even — if it ever does.
For a nation built on natural wealth, that’s not progress. That’s sabotage.
Ruining Canada to Save His Reputation
The price tag for Canada’s Net-Zero transition is staggering — up to $140 billion every year through 2050, just to fund renewable energy, electrification, and carbon capture. Earlier estimates placed the total cost around $2 trillion.
Even partial measures toward 2030 goals are expected to erase 250,000 jobs and shrink GDP by 7%.
From Carbon Taxes to Zoning Reforms—What Homeowners Need to Know
10 Game-Changing Housing Policies Set to Reshape Canadian Homeownership in 2025
As Canada grapples with a persistent housing crisis, affordability challenges, and evolving environmental priorities, 2025 promises to be a pivotal year for homeowners. From stricter energy standards to rental restrictions and foreign investment curbs, a wave of new laws and policies is poised to alter how Canadians buy, sell, rent, and maintain their properties. Drawing from expert analysis in a recent video breakdown, this article explores the top 10 developments that could make or break your real estate plans. Whether you’re a first-time buyer, long-term landlord, or suburban homeowner, staying informed is your best defense. Let’s dive in.
1. Carbon Tax-Driven Building Code Overhauls: Efficiency or Expense?
Starting next year, federal carbon tax policies will enforce sweeping changes to building codes, mandating upgrades like superior insulation, heat pumps, and low-emission materials for all new constructions and major renovations. Homeowners face retrofitting costs that could exceed $50,000 per property, with non-compliant homes potentially uninsurable or unsellable. While aimed at slashing emissions, critics argue this burdens middle-class families without adequate rebates, turning “green” living into a financial green light for contractors.
2. Nationwide Crackdown on Short-Term Rentals: Airbnb’s Days Numbered?
Municipalities from Toronto to Vancouver are rolling out bans on short-term rentals (STRs) unless the property is the host’s primary residence. Expect rigorous licensing, hefty $10,000 fines for violations, and mandatory data-sharing with platforms like Airbnb. For supplemental income seekers, this spells trouble—many will pivot to long-term leases or sell outright, tightening the rental market and driving up prices for everyone else.
3. Zoning Shifts for the ’15-Minute City’: Goodbye, Suburban Dreams?
The push toward walkable, self-contained neighborhoods—dubbed “15-minute cities”—is fueling aggressive zoning reforms. Single-family lots could be rezoned for multiplexes, parking minimums slashed, and green spaces repurposed for density. With limited public consultation, these changes risk eroding neighborhood aesthetics and property values, sparking backlash from homeowners who cherish their quiet cul-de-sacs. Proponents, however, see it as essential for urban sustainability.
4. CMHC Tightens the Mortgage Reins: Qualification Nightmares Ahead
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) is ramping up eligibility rules, demanding higher credit scores, lower debt-to-income ratios (now capped at 35%), and more brutal stress tests. First-time buyers may find themselves sidelined, while renewers face surprise rate hikes. This “prudent lending” push aims to cool speculation but could lock out millennials and Gen Z, exacerbating intergenerational wealth gaps in an already inflated market.
5. Quebec’s Anti-Renoviction Legislation: Tenant Power vs. Landlord Woes
In la belle province, a new bill empowers renters to contest “renoviction” notices, forcing landlords to substantiate renovation needs and grant tenants first dibs on returning post-upgrade. While protecting vulnerable residents from displacement, it may deter much-needed property improvements, leading to a stale rental stock and higher turnover costs. Quebec’s unique tenant-landlord dynamics just got even more complex.
6. Escalating Vacancy Taxes: No More Empty Nests?
Cities like Vancouver and Toronto are hiking vacancy taxes to 3-5% of assessed value, now targeting not just investors but everyday Canadians with vacation homes or inherited properties. Evasion means audits, liens, and penalties—imagine proving your lakeside cottage isn’t “underused.” This revenue tool for affordable housing funds could push owners to rent or sell reluctantly, injecting supply but at the cost of personal flexibility.
7. British Columbia’s Rental-Only Zones: Locked into Leasing?
BC municipalities gain authority to designate swaths of land as “rental-only,” barring owners from converting units to personal use or sales without approval. This anti-speculation measure might stabilize rents short-term but traps investors in perpetual tenancy, clashing with life changes like retirement or family growth. It’s a bold experiment in social housing that could redefine property rights on the West Coast.
8. Ontario’s Green Belt Reversal: Development Dreams Derailed
After a brief flirtation with expansion, Ontario has reinstated full Green Belt protections, voiding hundreds of approved housing projects. Developers are reeling from sunk costs, while nearby homeowners watch values dip amid uncertainty. This environmental win for farmland preservation highlights the tug-of-war between growth and conservation, leaving aspiring builders—and their financiers—in the lurch.
What began as a two-year federal moratorium on non-resident home purchases is now a permanent fixture, with fines up to $10 million for violators and expanded enforcement via immigration data. While curbing overseas speculation, it may inadvertently shrink new construction (as foreign capital dries up) and inflate prices in hot markets. Canadians cheer the move, but economists warn of unintended supply squeezes.
10. Expanded Underused Housing Tax: No Hiding for Corporations
The federal underused housing tax (UHT)—once aimed at foreign owners—is broadening to snag Canadian corporations, trusts, and even co-owned vacation spots. At 1% of value annually, plus labyrinthine filing rules, non-compliance invites audits and back-taxes. This equity-focused levy could flush empty luxury pads into the market but burdens family estates and small businesses with red tape.
Navigating the New Normal: What Homeowners Can Do
These policies reflect Canada’s dual quest for sustainability and equity, but they come with real risks: higher costs, reduced flexibility, and market volatility. Homeowners should audit their properties for compliance, consult local realtors on zoning shifts, and explore incentives like energy rebates to soften the blow. Policymakers promise these measures will foster a fairer housing landscape, but for now, adaptation is key. As 2025 unfolds, one thing’s certain: the Canadian dream of homeownership is evolving—fast.
This article is inspired by insights from real estate commentator Kyle Hankins in his video “10 Laws & Policies Coming in 2025 That Could Affect Canadian Homeowners.” For the full discussion, check out the original source.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RynIhknhDA
Canadian housing policies 2025, real estate reforms, sustainable urban planning, affordable housing crisis, environmental regulations, homeownership, rental market, zoning laws, mortgage rules, green building, short-term rentals, vacancy tax, foreign investment, real estate market trends, carbon tax, building codes, 15-minute city, CMHC, renoviction, Green Belt, underused housing tax,
When governments turn offence into law, liberty collapses into sentiment. Canada risks importing Britain’s mistakes, just as J.D. Vance warned Europe in Munich.
In the shadow of recent global upheavals—from the echoes of January 6 in Washington to the street-level tensions in European cities—nations are grappling with how to safeguard democracy without strangling the very freedoms that define it. Enter Canada’s Bill C-9, the so-called Combatting Hate Act, introduced on September 19, 2025, by Justice Minister Arif Virani. On the surface, it’s a well-intentioned bid to fortify protections against hate propaganda, hate crimes, and intimidation at religious or cultural sites. The bill amends the Criminal Code to eliminate the need for Attorney General consent before laying charges for hate propaganda offenses, streamlines prosecutions, and introduces new penalties for obstructing access to places of worship. Who could argue with making communities safer, especially amid rising antisemitism, Islamophobia, and other forms of bigotry?
Yet, beneath this veneer of protection lies a peril more insidious than the hatred it seeks to curb: the tyranny of feeling. When governments codify subjective offense into objective law, they don’t just police actions—they police thoughts, words, and the messy pluralism of public discourse. Bill C-9 isn’t merely a legal tweak; it’s a gateway to a sentiment-driven state where hurt feelings become handcuffs, and dissent is rebranded as danger. As U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance thundered at the Munich Security Conference in February 2025, Europe—and by extension, its transatlantic cousins like Canada—must heed the “retreat” of free speech before it’s too late. Vance’s words, delivered to a room of rattled European leaders, weren’t hyperbole. They were a siren call against the very trajectory Canada now courts.
The Slippery Slope of Sentiment
Bill C-9 expands the Criminal Code’s hate propaganda provisions, making it easier to prosecute expressions deemed “willfully [to] promote hatred against any identifiable group.” It also criminalizes “deliberately intimidating or obstructing” access to religious or cultural spaces, with penalties up to five years in prison. Proponents, including the government, frame this as essential for vulnerable communities: “Canadians of all races and ethnicities, faiths, sexualities and genders” deserve to “feel safe.” Fair enough. No one disputes the scourge of hate-fueled violence.
But critics, from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) to the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group (ICLMG), warn of overreach. The CCLA argues the bill “risks criminalizing peaceful protest,” potentially ensnaring activists who block access to sites during demonstrations—think pro-Palestine rallies near synagogues or anti-abortion vigils outside clinics. The ICLMG goes further, decrying it as a tool to “criminalize dissent,” particularly against marginalized voices challenging state narratives on issues like Israel’s actions in Gaza. In a nation where Section 2 of the Charter enshrines freedom of expression as fundamental, this isn’t reform—it’s regression.
The tyranny here is emotional, not ideological. Laws like C-9 prioritize feelings over facts, elevating the subjective sting of offense above the objective clash of ideas. What constitutes “hatred”? Who decides when a protest crosses into “intimidation”? In practice, it’s often those in power, wielding the gavel like a sentiment gauge. This isn’t hyperbole; it’s history in the making.
Lessons from Across the Pond: Britain’s Cautionary Tale
Canada doesn’t need to speculate on the fallout—our neighbor to the east, Britain, has already walked this path and stumbled hard. The UK’s Communications Act of 2003 and Public Order Act of 1986 have long criminalized “grossly offensive” or “abusive” messages, leading to a parade of absurdities that Vance lambasted in Munich as evidence of free speech’s “retreat.”
Consider the cases: In 2012, a man was arrested for a Facebook post joking about digging up Nelson Mandela’s grave. Fast-forward to 2024’s summer riots, where pensioners and housewives faced jail for “offensive” social media posts criticizing immigration—posts that, in a freer society, might spark debate but not handcuffs. The Online Safety Act of 2023, hailed as a bulwark against harms, has instead amplified fears of a “chilling effect,” with platforms preemptively censoring content to avoid fines. As one commentator put it, the UK risks becoming a “tin pot Third World dictatorship” where even mild dissent invites the knock at the door.
Vance didn’t mince words in Munich: “In Britain, and across Europe, free speech, I fear, is in retreat.” He accused leaders of suppressing voters’ voices on migration and culture, prioritizing elite comfort over democratic vitality. European dignitaries bristled—German Chancellor Olaf Scholz called it “unhelpful”—but Vance’s critique landed because it’s rooted in reality. Britain’s experiment shows that when offense becomes the offense, liberty doesn’t just erode; it evaporates.
Canada, with its polite national mythos, might fancy itself immune. But Bill C-9 imports this exact playbook: vague thresholds for “hate,” expedited prosecutions, and a cultural tilt toward harmony at speech’s expense. We’re not talking about incitement to violence—already illegal under Section 319 of the Criminal Code. We’re talking about broadening the net to catch the uncomfortable, the provocative, the merely felt as harmful.
A Transatlantic Warning for a Northern Neighbor
Vance’s Munich address wasn’t just a U.S. flex; it was a mirror for allies like Canada. “The people of Europe are speaking,” he said, urging a rejection of “backsliding on freedom of speech and democracy.” For Canadians, the message is urgent: Don’t follow Britain’s lead into this sentimental snare. Our Charter isn’t a suggestion; it’s a bulwark. Yet bills like C-9 chip away at it, one “protected feeling” at a time.
Imagine a future where a tweet decrying government policy on indigenous land rights is flagged as “hate” against settlers. Or where a satirical cartoon about religious extremism draws charges of intimidation. These aren’t hypotheticals—they’re the UK’s present, and Canada’s potential.
Reclaiming Liberty from the Grip of Sentiment
The path forward isn’t to abandon protections against real harm but to refine them with precision, not passion. Demand amendments to C-9: Clear definitions, robust Charter safeguards, and independent oversight to prevent abuse. Engage your MP—Substack readers, fire up those newsletters; LinkedIn professionals, leverage your networks; website visitors, share this far and wide.
Liberty thrives not in the absence of offense but in its endurance. As Vance reminded Munich, true security comes from robust debate, not muffled mouths. Canada, let’s learn from Britain’s stumbles before we trip into the same darkness. The tyranny of feeling is seductive, but it’s no match for the light of free thought.
If this resonates, subscribe for more on the fraying edges of freedom. Share your thoughts below—what’s one “offense” you’d fight to keep legal?
Earlier this week, buried in the middle of a lengthy blog post addressing ChatGPT’s propensity for severe mental health harms, OpenAI admitted that it’s scanning users’ conversations and reporting to police any interactions that a human reviewer deems sufficiently threatening.
“When we detect users who are planning to harm others, we route their conversations to specialized pipelines where they are reviewed by a small team trained on our usage policies and who are authorized to take action, including banning accounts,” it wrote. “If human reviewers determine that a case involves an imminent threat of serious physical harm to others, we may refer it to law enforcement.”
The announcement raised immediate questions. Don’t human moderators judging tone, for instance, undercut the entire premise of an AI system that its creators say can solve broad, complex problems? How is OpenAI even figuring out users’ precise locations in order to provide them to emergency responders? How is it protecting against abuse by so-called swatters, who could pretend to be someone else and then make violent threats to ChatGPT in order to get their targets raided by the cops…? The admission also seems to contradict remarks by OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, who recently called for privacy akin to a “therapist or a lawyer or a doctor” for users talking to ChatGPT. “Others argued that the AI industry is hastily pushing poorly-understood products to market, using real people as guinea pigs, and adopting increasingly haphazard solutions to real-world problems as they arise…”
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader schwit1 for sharing the news.
The World Economic Forum (WEF), founded in 1971 by Klaus Schwab, is an international organization based in Geneva that convenes global leaders to discuss economic, social, and environmental issues. It promotes initiatives like stakeholder capitalism, sustainable development, and the “Great Reset”—a post-COVID framework for more equitable and green economies. In Canada, the WEF’s engagement is primarily through high-level participation in events (e.g., the annual Davos summit), partnerships with government agencies, and its Young Global Leaders (YGL) program, which selects rising stars in politics and business for networking and training. Canada’s government is listed as a WEF partner, and officials like Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland have attended WEF meetings to promote trade and innovation.
However, the term “penetration” stems directly from Schwab’s own 2017 statement at Harvard’s Kennedy School, where he said: “We penetrate the cabinets… What we are very proud of now is the young generation like Prime Minister Trudeau… We penetrate the cabinet.” This has fueled debates about undue foreign influence, especially since multiple Canadian cabinet members are YGL alumni. Critics argue this creates conflicts of interest, prioritizing global agendas over national ones, while defenders view it as standard international networking.
Key Canadian Figures with WEF Ties
Several prominent Canadians hold or have held roles in WEF programs, often in finance, trade, or policy. Here’s a table of notable examples:
Authored a book on global elites; key in COVID economic responses.
Mark Carney
Former Bank of Canada Governor; UN Envoy
WEF Agenda Contributor; Trustee
Pushed green finance; recent EU trade talks amid U.S. tariff concerns.
Melanie Joly
Foreign Affairs Minister
YGL (2016)
Leads Global Affairs Canada, a WEF partner.
Michelle Rempel Garner
Conservative MP
YGL (2016)
Defended WEF in 2022 op-ed, denying it “runs Canada.”
Jagmeet Singh
NDP Leader
YGL partner program affiliate
Supports progressive policies aligning with WEF sustainability goals.
These ties span parties (Liberal, Conservative, NDP), showing broad elite-level engagement. Globally, over 800 YGLs exist, with alumni in 100+ countries. In Canada, this network influences policy through shared ideas on climate action, digital economy, and equity.
Official Influence and Partnerships
Government Partnerships: Global Affairs Canada collaborates with the WEF on initiatives like the “Agile Nations Charter” (signed 2020 for tech regulation) and oceans protection. The WEF’s Strategic Intelligence platform includes Canada-specific insights on energy transition and AI.
Economic Impact: Canada ranks 28th in WEF’s 2020 Energy Transition Index, criticized for slow fossil fuel phase-out despite oil sands wealth. WEF reports urge higher emissions targets and ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) investing.
Events and Trade: Trudeau attended Davos in 2018 to boost investment, meeting leaders like Germany’s Angela Merkel. Recent 2025 discussions under Carney focus on EU ties amid U.S. tariffs, aligning with WEF’s multilateral trade push.
These are transparent collaborations, but they raise sovereignty questions, as WEF agendas (e.g., net-zero goals) can pressure domestic policy.
Criticisms and Conspiracy Theories
The WEF’s role in Canada has sparked polarized views:
Legitimate Concerns: Critics like Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre argue WEF ideas erode sovereignty, citing “Great Reset” as a blueprint for globalist overreach. Poilievre pledged no ministers would attend Davos, calling it anti-Canadian. Former PM Bill Morneau (YGL) resigned in 2020 partly over WE Charity ties, highlighting elite networks. Groups like REAL Women of Canada claim WEF loyalty trumps national interests, pointing to ignored public concerns on carbon taxes.
Conspiracy Narratives: Theories portray the WEF as a “cabal” plotting a “New World Order” via COVID, vaccines, and 15-minute cities to end private property (“You’ll own nothing and be happy”). These surged in 2020–2022, amplified by Freedom Convoy protests and figures like Maxime Bernier. U.S. podcaster Del Bigtree called Canada “WEF’s ground zero” for restricting nature access. On X (formerly Twitter), users link Carney’s EU pivot to WEF anti-U.S. agendas, fearing economic collapse for wealth redistribution. Some trace roots to antisemitic tropes of global control.
Fact-checks (e.g., CTV, CBC) dismiss full conspiracies: The WEF influences ideas but doesn’t dictate policy—it’s a forum, not a government. Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner, a YGL, wrote: “The WEF is elitist but not a cabal.” WEF Managing Director Adrian Monck urged focusing on real issues like climate, not disinformation. Yet, Schwab’s “penetration” comment and opaque funding (corporate memberships up to $600K) fuel distrust.
Recent X discussions (as of September 2025) tie Carney’s ethics lapses and EU focus to WEF “communist” agendas, with calls to exit WEF/UN/WHO treaties.
Broader Implications
Canada’s WEF ties reflect its G7 status—open to global forums but vulnerable to elite capture. Policies like carbon pricing and immigration (36% population growth under Trudeau) align with WEF sustainability but strain resources. If “penetration” means undue sway, evidence shows influence via networks, not outright control. For balance, left-leaning critics (e.g., Naomi Klein) call the Great Reset a “rebranding” of corporate power, while right-wing voices see authoritarianism.
To counter: Poilievre’s ban on Davos attendance could reduce optics, but deeper reform (e.g., foreign agent registries) might address interference. As of 2025, with Carney’s EU shift and U.S. tensions, debates intensify—watch trade deals for WEF fingerprints.
World Economic Forum, Canada WEF influence, Justin Trudeau WEF, Great Reset Canada, Young Global Leaders Canada, Mark Carney WEF, Canadian government WEF, WEF Davos Canada, Global influence Canada, Canadian sovereignty WEF,
This is really not about speed cameras in the long term. It’s about spying on when you go and come from an area. Just like in England and China. Don’t believe me, look for the truth!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCY84DCva7Q
In Ontario, Canada, posting a “No Trespassing” sign is a legal way to indicate that unauthorized entry onto your property is prohibited. The framework for this falls primarily under the Trespass to Property Act, RSO 1990, c T.21, which governs trespassing laws in the province. Below is a clear explanation of how “No Trespassing” signs work in Ontario, their legal implications, and practical considerations:
1. Purpose of a No Trespassing Sign
A “No Trespassing” sign serves as a formal notice to others that they are not permitted to enter or remain on your property without permission. It provides evidence that you, as the property owner or occupier, have explicitly communicated your intent to restrict access.
2. Legal Basis: Trespass to Property Act
The Trespass to Property Act outlines the rules for trespassing in Ontario. Key points relevant to “No Trespassing” signs include:
Trespass Offence: Under Section 2(1) of the Act, a person commits trespass if they:
Enter a property where entry is prohibited (e.g., where a sign is posted).
Engage in an activity on the property that is prohibited.
Fail to leave the property when directed by the occupier or their agent.
Notice Requirement: The Act allows property owners to give notice that entry is prohibited. This can be done:
In writing (e.g., a “No Trespassing” sign).
Orally (e.g., verbally telling someone to leave).
By implied notice (e.g., physical barriers like fences or gates that clearly indicate restricted access).
A “No Trespassing” sign is a common and effective way to provide written notice.
3. Requirements for No Trespassing Signs
While the Trespass to Property Act does not prescribe specific wording or design for signs, there are practical and legal considerations to ensure their effectiveness:
Clarity: The sign should clearly state that unauthorized entry is prohibited. Common wording includes:
“No Trespassing”
“Private Property – No Entry”
“Trespassers Will Be Prosecuted”
Visibility: Signs should be placed in locations where they are easily seen by potential trespassers, such as:
Entry points (e.g., gates, driveways, or pathways).
Perimeter boundaries of the property.
Near areas where trespassing is a concern (e.g., near a private dock or forested area).
Durability: Signs should be weather-resistant and legible to ensure they remain effective over time.
Size and Placement: While there’s no mandated size, signs should be large enough to be readable from a reasonable distance. For large properties, multiple signs may be needed to ensure adequate notice.
Specificity (if needed): If certain activities are prohibited (e.g., hunting, fishing, or parking), the sign should specify this. For example, “No Hunting or Fishing” or “No Parking Without Permission.”
4. Legal Effect of a No Trespassing Sign
Prohibited Entry: A properly displayed sign indicates that entry without permission is a trespass offence under the Act. This applies to private property, such as homes, cottages, farms, or businesses.
Evidence in Court: If a trespasser is charged, the sign serves as evidence that the property owner or occupier provided clear notice that entry was prohibited.
Limited Exceptions: Certain individuals may have a legal right to enter despite a sign, such as:
Emergency services (e.g., police, firefighters, or paramedics acting in their duties).
Utility workers or government officials with legal authority (e.g., for inspections or maintenance).
Implied invitation: If the property is open to the public (e.g., a store during business hours), a sign may not apply unless specific areas are restricted.
5. Enforcement
If someone trespasses on your property despite a “No Trespassing” sign:
Request to Leave: You can ask the trespasser to leave immediately. If they refuse, they are committing an offence under the Act.
Contact Authorities: If the trespasser does not leave or if you feel unsafe, you can contact the police. Trespassing is a provincial offence, and police have the authority to:
Issue a warning.
Issue a Provincial Offences Notice (ticket) with a fine (typically up to $65 for a first offence, though fines can be higher in some cases).
Arrest the trespasser in certain circumstances (e.g., if they are causing damage or refusing to leave).
Civil Action: If trespassing causes damage (e.g., to property or crops), you may pursue a civil lawsuit for damages in addition to any criminal or administrative penalties.
6. Penalties for Trespassing
Under the Trespass to Property Act:
Trespassing is a provincial offence, not a criminal offence (unless it involves additional crimes like vandalism or assault).
Fines for a first offence are typically up to $65, but courts can impose higher fines (up to $2,000 in some cases) or other penalties for repeat or serious offences.
If the trespasser causes damage, they may face additional liability for restitution.
7. Special Considerations
Rural or Large Properties: For farms, cottages, or large parcels of land, it’s important to place signs at regular intervals along boundaries, especially where access is likely (e.g., trails or roads). Courts may consider whether notice was reasonably communicated.
Public vs. Private Property: If your property borders public land (e.g., a park or lake), signs are especially important to clarify boundaries.
Posting on Behalf of Others: If you’re not the property owner (e.g., a tenant or property manager), you must have the owner’s authority to post signs or enforce trespass laws.
Color-Coded Notices: In some cases, property owners use colored markings (e.g., purple paint) to indicate no trespassing, as permitted in some jurisdictions. However, Ontario’s Trespass to Property Act does not explicitly recognize paint markings, so written signs are the safest option.
8. Practical Tips
Document Trespassing Incidents: Take photos or videos of trespassers (if safe to do so) and note dates, times, and details to support any legal action.
Maintain Signs: Regularly check that signs are visible, intact, and not faded.
Consider Additional Measures: Fences, gates, or security cameras can reinforce the message that entry is restricted.
Know Your Boundaries: Ensure you know the exact boundaries of your property to avoid disputes with neighbors or trespassers.
9. Limitations
A “No Trespassing” sign does not grant you the right to use force to remove someone unless they pose an immediate threat (self-defense laws apply).
Signs alone may not deter determined trespassers, so be prepared to involve law enforcement if needed.
If the property is part of a shared space (e.g., a condominium or easement), consult with other stakeholders before posting signs, as restrictions may apply.
Conclusion
In Ontario, a “No Trespassing” sign is a legally recognized way to prohibit unauthorized entry under the Trespass to Property Act. To be effective, signs must be clear, visible, and strategically placed. If a trespass occurs, you can ask the person to leave, contact police, or pursue legal remedies for damages. For specific situations (e.g., large rural properties or commercial spaces), consider consulting a lawyer to ensure your signs and enforcement approach comply with Ontario law.
The Canadian Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are closely related but distinct components of Canada’s legal framework. Below is a clear explanation of their differences:
1. Definition and Scope
Canadian Constitution: The Constitution is the supreme law of Canada, encompassing a collection of documents, statutes, and unwritten conventions that define the country’s system of government, the distribution of powers, and the fundamental principles of governance. It includes:
The Constitution Act, 1867 (originally the British North America Act), which establishes the federal structure, division of powers between federal and provincial governments, and the framework for institutions like Parliament and the judiciary.
The Constitution Act, 1982, which includes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the amending formula, and provisions for Indigenous rights and equalization payments.
Other statutes (e.g., the Statute of Westminster, 1931) and unwritten principles like judicial independence and the rule of law.
The Constitution is broad, covering the structure and operation of government, not just individual rights.
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: The Charter is a specific part of the Constitution, forming Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982. It is a bill of rights that guarantees specific political and civil rights to individuals in Canada, such as freedom of expression, equality rights, and legal protections. It primarily focuses on protecting individuals from government actions that infringe on these rights.
Key Difference: The Constitution is the overarching framework for Canada’s governance, while the Charter is a component of the Constitution that specifically addresses individual rights and freedoms.
2. Purpose
Constitution: Establishes how Canada is governed, including:
The division of powers between federal and provincial governments (e.g., federal authority over criminal law, provincial authority over education).
The roles of institutions like the monarchy, Parliament, and courts.
Procedures for amending the Constitution.
It sets the “rules of the game” for the country’s political and legal systems.
Charter: Protects individual and collective rights against government overreach, ensuring that laws and government actions comply with fundamental rights like:
Freedom of speech, religion, and assembly (section 2).
Equality before the law (section 15).
Legal rights, such as protection against unreasonable search or seizure (section 8).
It provides a mechanism for individuals to challenge unconstitutional laws or government actions in court.
Key Difference: The Constitution defines the structure and powers of government, while the Charter focuses on protecting individual rights from government actions.
3. Content
Constitution: Includes a wide range of provisions beyond rights, such as:
Federal-provincial division of powers (sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867).
The role of the Governor General and provincial Lieutenant Governors.
The amending formula (Part V of the Constitution Act, 1982).
Provisions for Indigenous rights (section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982).
The Charter itself, as Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982.
It also incorporates unwritten principles, such as parliamentary sovereignty and federalism.
Charter: Contains 34 sections specifically addressing rights and freedoms, including:
Fundamental freedoms (section 2: religion, expression, assembly).
Democratic rights (sections 3–5: voting, elections).
Mobility rights (section 6: moving and working across provinces).
Legal rights (sections 7–14: life, liberty, fair trials).
Equality rights (section 15: non-discrimination).
Official language and minority language education rights (sections 16–23).
The Charter also includes provisions for enforcement (section 24) and the notwithstanding clause (section 33), which allows governments to override certain rights temporarily.
Key Difference: The Constitution covers a broad range of governance issues, while the Charter is narrowly focused on rights and freedoms.
4. Application
Constitution: Applies to the structure and operation of government at all levels (federal, provincial, territorial). It governs how laws are made, who has authority, and how power is distributed. For example, a provincial law can be struck down if it exceeds provincial jurisdiction under the Constitution Act, 1867.
Charter: Applies primarily to government actions (federal, provincial, or municipal) and their agencies, not private individuals or businesses unless they act on behalf of the government. It allows individuals to challenge laws or government actions that violate their Charter-protected rights. For example, a law restricting free speech could be challenged under section 2 of the Charter.
Key Difference: The Constitution governs the framework of government power, while the Charter protects individuals from abuses of that power.
5. Historical Context
Constitution: Canada’s Constitution evolved over time, starting with the Constitution Act, 1867, which created the Dominion of Canada. It was supplemented by other statutes and conventions, and fully patriated from the UK with the Constitution Act, 1982, which ended the need for British approval to amend the Constitution.
Charter: Introduced in 1982 as part of the patriation process under Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, the Charter was a new addition to the Constitution. It marked a significant shift by entrenching individual rights in the Constitution, making them enforceable by courts and harder for governments to override (except via section 33).
Key Difference: The Constitution has a longer historical evolution, while the Charter is a modern addition (1982) focused on rights protection.
6. Legal Effect and Enforcement
Constitution: As the supreme law, all laws in Canada must conform to the Constitution. Courts can strike down laws that violate constitutional provisions, such as those exceeding federal or provincial jurisdiction. The Constitution’s amending formula (Part V, Constitution Act, 1982) requires agreement from Parliament and a majority of provinces for major changes.
Charter: Courts can strike down laws or government actions that violate Charter rights, unless justified under section 1 (reasonable limits) or overridden by section 33 (notwithstanding clause). Section 24 allows courts to provide remedies, such as excluding evidence obtained in violation of Charter rights. The Charter has led to significant court decisions shaping Canadian law, like legalizing same-sex marriage and protecting abortion rights.
Key Difference: The Constitution ensures the legality of government structure and powers, while the Charter provides a mechanism for individuals to challenge rights violations.
Summary
The Canadian Constitution is the broad legal framework that defines Canada’s system of government, including the division of powers, institutions, and principles of governance. It includes multiple documents and unwritten conventions.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a specific part of the Constitution (Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982) focused on protecting individual and collective rights from government actions.
In essence, the Constitution is the “rulebook” for how Canada operates, while the Charter is a key chapter within that rulebook, ensuring that government actions respect fundamental rights. For the full text, you can refer to the Constitution Act, 1867, and the Constitution Act, 1982 (including the Charter) on the Government of Canada’s Justice Laws website.
Follow
