In two recent decisions, the Ontario Land Tribunal confirmed that the individual and fact-specific context of an application factors heavily on the reasonableness of a condition requiring parkland dedication, or cash in lieu (“CIL”). These rulings make clear that parkland dedication is not a generalized revenue tool for municipalities and is not intended to be imposed on every proposal that could be classified as development or redevelopment.
The decisions—The Bruce Trail Conservancy v Mono (Town)[1] (“Bruce Trail”) and James-Umana v North Dumfries (Township)[2] (“James-Umana”)—both challenged the reasonableness of a CIL condition. The context and type of application were different in each matter, but the Tribunal’s analyses had a similar tenor. Together, these cases provide an opportunity for commentary about the scope of the parkland dedication regime and what kind of proposal ought to trigger the imposition of parkland dedication or CIL.
This article first reviews the parkland dedication regime as set out in the Planning Act.[3] It then summarizes each decision before concluding with a brief case commentary.