The Ontario Court of Appeal has upheld the decision of a lower court that dismissed a developer’s constitutional challenge regarding a 2023 law which reinstated 15 parcels of land back to the Greenbelt. This ruling comes as part of an ongoing legal battle between the developer, Minotar Holdings Inc., and the provincial government.
The central issue of the legal dispute revolves around provincial legislation that reversed Premier Doug Ford's previous initiative to permit development on protected Greenbelt lands. In its challenge, Minotar Holdings contended that the law infringes upon the authority of superior courts as well as “unwritten constitutional principles.” However, the Appeal Court found that the developer's claims would disrupt the balance established within the Constitution, leading to the dismissal of their arguments.
Minotar Holdings initiated litigation against the province in 2017, asserting that its 210-acre plot was mistakenly designated as part of the Greenbelt. The situation took a positive turn for the developer in 2022 when an agreement was reached with the province to remove a 37-acre segment of their property from the restricted reserve. However, this settlement was rescinded in 2023 amidst controversies linked to Ford's plan that aimed at privatizing sections of the Greenbelt for development. This decision faced significant backlash following critical reports from the auditor general and integrity commissioner, which exposed preferential treatment given to select developers.
Following the revelations from the reports, Premier Ford reinstated all 15 parcels of land, including the 37 acres owned by Minotar, back to the Greenbelt. The law that facilitated this restoration stipulated that any future changes to the Greenbelt's boundaries would require legislative action rather than mere regulatory adjustments. This provision effectively shielded the government from judicial scrutiny concerning modifications to the Greenbelt, a point that Minotar's attorney, Paul Fruitman, raised during the 2023 arguments.
In a narrow 2-1 ruling, the Appeal Court concurred with the lower court's decision, asserting that the actions taken by the province did not overstep the jurisdiction of superior courts. The ruling articulated that “the legislative amendments alter the legal rights of persons through changes to substantive law,” emphasizing that these alterations do not impair inherent judicial powers but instead align with established regulatory practices.
