Vigilant voters are ultimately the best protection for property but a clause in the Charter would very likely help

You can save this article by registering for free here. Or sign-in if you have an account.

Part 1 of this two-part series discussed the circumstances that led to the omission of property rights from Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But what would life be like if things had turned out differently? The experience of countries with constitutional protection for property rights offers a glimpse down the path not taken.

Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.

Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.

Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.

Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.

The U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment provides explicit protection against the unjust seizure of property by government. But it’s not an ironclad defence, as Eric Claeys, law professor at George Mason University, points out in his 2025 book “Natural Property Rights.”

The book begins with a look at the infamous 2005 U.S. Supreme Court case of Kelo v. City of New London, in which civic officials were allowed to expropriate several private homes in order to give them to a developer planning to build a pharmaceutical plant. There was no evidence such a move was in the broader public interest. The court simply accepted that helping out the developer in this way could boost the local economy. As Kelo’s many critics have........

© Financial Post