Wlyonmackenzie wrote:Voluntarily putting your property deed on file with the province brings you into their sphere of influence...you note that even though your property is wholly owned and paid for ( a bill of sale is all you really need under the statute of frauds) and has all private leans, caveats or claims provably discharged, the province still lays claim to it in the form of a yearly tax or Tithe to be paid for them to recognise your now reduced ownership rights.
This is the way real property has been subverted by the state from the old British legal status of free hold to a diminished status of fee simple.
What you want will require the rewriting of the provincial land titles act.....that said, I stand with you to regain real free hold status for property.....right down to manning the barricades with you. If you succeed, It frees up my property holdings from state degredation as well.
Okay, first of all, this is an old thread that has been inactive approximately forever, but I ran across it, read it and found a glaring error I wanted to correct. This is important to probably no one else but me, but I can't let an inaccuracy stand in my area of expertise.
In the above quote WLM says that property rights are somehow diluted by virtue of a fee simple estate as opposed to a freehold estate as they had in British law. Wrong. The fee simple estate is simply a form of a freehold estate. In British property law, all land is owned by the Crown, and always has been. In fact it is the Crown's continued right of ownership that allows for taxation, expropriation, escheat (where Title reverts to the Crown if there are no claimants in an intestacy). The Crown never gave up its ultimate right of reversion. It doesn't make sense to talk about fee simple as though it were somehow distinct from freehold title, it is a form of freehold title, to be contrasted with an estate in fee tail, or a life estate. Freehold can only be contrasted with leasehold, but both still exist. (It should be obvious what a leasehold estate is, it's the right you have in property when you rent it from the Crown or the fee simple owner.)
In fact, of the three estates possible under freehold title, fee simple is the boradest and most expansive, with unlimited rights of designated inheritance. Fee tail has been abolished almost universally, and life estates are extremely rare, although they are used in the Western provinces as a means of recognizing dower/homestead rights. Leasehold is of course more limited than either of these being an estate that lasts only as long as the lease contract says it does.
Otherwise, the other clarification I wanted to make was with the idea that "we have no property rights." We do have property rights, but they are not constitutional in nature as they are in the U.S. arguably it makes no real difference though, since most titles in the U.S. are ultimately of a fee simple nature, meaning that the government still has the right to tax, expropriate, etc.
Our property rights are those that the Crown says we have, as agreed to in the Magna Carta.
It's actually my favorite area of legal history. If you're curious wiki has some good articles about it.
In short, what people have said in this thread about rights to ignore laws, deny access to property, only needing a bill of sale under the Statute of Frauds is all incorrect in the common law tradition. Unless you go through whatever the Crown requires, they have the ultimate right to pull the rug out from under you. Pretty scary, eh?