Stay informed with the latest insights and updates

This paper was paired with a presentation given by Nancy Smith at the Ontario Bar Association’s Ontario Legal Conference: Municipal, Planning and Environmental Law program held on February 6 & 7, 2025.

Community benefits charges (“CBC”) are a new funding tool authorized under s. 37 of Ontario’s Planning Act (the “Act”) that allow municipalities to impose a charge against higher density development to pay for capital costs related to developments and redevelopments. CBCs can only be levied against mid- to high-density buildings that are five or more storeys and contain 10 or more residential units.

On Friday, November 8, 2024, the Supreme Court of Canada (the “SCC”) released two unanimous decisions, Auer v. Auer, 2024 SCC 36 (“Auer”) and TransAlta Generation Partnership v. Alberta, 2024 SCC 37 (“TransAlta”) clarifying the standard of review for judicial review of subordinate legislation, including ministerial regulations. The below article explores how these cases may affect Municipal and Planning Law matters in Ontario.

On September 16, 2024, the Province of Ontario proposed a new regulation under the Planning Act that would authorize the use of pay-on-demand surety bonds (PSB) with prescribed features to secure development-related obligations.

On August 20, 2024, the Ontario Land Tribunal (“OLT” or “Tribunal”) launched consultations on proposed changes to its Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Proposed Rules”). Consultations ran from August 20 to September 27, 2024. On October 1, the Tribunal announced it was reviewing the feedback received during consultation and would provide further details once that review was complete.

On August 20, 2024, the province of Ontario published the new Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, a province-wide policy instrument that, once in force, will replace both the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 and A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. It will come into force on October 20, 2024.

When a municipality seeks injunctive relief to restrain the breach of a by-law pursuant to section 440 of the <em>Municipal Act, 2001</em>, the municipality enjoys different rights versus a party seeking standard injunctive relief flowing from the equitable jurisdiction of the Superior Court of Justice. 

In determining valuation of an expropriated interest, arbitral tribunals must consider existing planning and zoning regulations. However, the admissibility of evidence concerning post-expropriation planning and zoning changes can often become a pivotal issue in determining the probable highest and best use, as well as the market value of the subject property.

For the professionalism portion of the Law Society’s recent Eight Minute Municipal Lawyer program, I was asked to reflect on managing uncertainty in the land use planning process. Here are my top five tips, most of which come from advice I have received over my longish career. I note that these are written from my perspective as a private practitioner, but I think that the majority are applicable to lawyers practicing in-house as well.

On April 10, 2024, the Provincial Government introduced Bill 185, the Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024. Currently in its second reading, the stated goals of the Bill include expediting housing construction by cutting red tape and streamlining approvals.

On April 10, 2024, the Ontario government (the “Province”) introduced Bill 185: Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024 (“Bill 185”), which simultaneously reintroduces and repeals prior changes to the planning and development regime in Ontario. This article provides a brief overview of these proposed legislative changes as it relates to planning and development.

On February 8 and 9, 2024, I participated in and attended the Ontario Bar Association’s Municipal, Planning, and Environmental Ontario Legal Conference. My experiences at the conference confirmed the complex nature of these all-too-important legal practice areas.

On Friday, January 26, 2024, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing issued a Ministerial Zoning Order (MZO), O. Reg. 10/24, reducing the heights of the protected air ambulance flight paths for St. Michael’s Hospital and the Hospital for Sick Children (SickKids).

On October 23, 2023, the Ontario Divisional Court (the “Divisional Court”) issued its decision in Loeb v. Toronto (City) (the “Decision”). The Divisional Court made several findings with respect to the standing of third-party participants in a minor variance application to seek judicial review from Committee of Adjustment decisions and opined on the level of fairness owed to participants in a minor variance hearing.

In Mann v Saugeen Shores, the Applicant claimed Charter violations because of their alleged denial to “meaningfully communicate” with elected officials.

This article reviews a recent decision by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Law Society of Ontario v Metrolinx , which dismissed Law Society of Ontario’s motion for an interlocutory injunction to stop Metrolinx from removing eleven trees on the Osgoode Hall site.

The Province of Ontario has delivered a clear message with regard to its expectations for both the private and public sector. There is to be more housing supply, built faster and priced more affordably. This article covers the new Provincial initiatives brought forward since 2019, currently in force, with the intent of achieving the stated Provincial goal of building 1.5 million new homes in 10 years.

On December 13, 2023, the Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing announced that it would be taking a critical eye to a number of existing ministerial zoning orders made pursuant to the Planning Act, and proposing revocations and amendments in support of a new “use it or lose it” approach to such orders. It will also be consulting with stakeholders on a new “go-forward framework” in respect of Ministerial Zoning Order requests and approvals.

This article outlines strategies on minimizing the risks associated with abnormally low bids in municipal procurement.

I started articling with the Regional Municipality of Peel (“Peel”) in July. Based on my experience so far, there are several reasons why I would recommend that every law student should consider articling with a municipality, particularly if they can’t decide what they want to do.

A recent decision from the Supreme Court of Canada involving a tragic incident has provided clarity on what the courts will assess when determining if a municipality is an “employer” under Ontario’s Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.1 (the “OHSA”).

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in Kosicki v. Toronto (City), 2023 ONCA 450, recently considered the relationship between the common law doctrine of adverse possession and its applicability to municipal parkland. The central question at stake in the dispute was the following: Can private landowners gain title over municipal parkland through adverse possession?

The Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) has published new rules for proceedings under the Expropriations Act. Specifically, the OLT has revised Part II (Expropriation Proceedings) of the OLT’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the Rules). The new Rules are in effect as of October 13, 2023.

On September 6, 2023, the Ontario Land Tribunal (the “OLT”) issued its decision in Calloway REIT (Mississauga) Inc. v Mississauga (City) (the “Decision”). The OLT found that the Planning Act grants municipalities the authority to enact general policies encouraging and promoting affordable housing, but does not allow them to mandate specific requirements outside of inclusionary zoning.

As we draw a close on the 2022-2023 term, I write to give you a highlight reel of the work done by your elected Executive over this past year.

This article provides an overview of the Ontario Planning Act regime respecting privately owned public spaces ("POPS") and how they will be changed upon proclamation of the parkland sections of Bill 23. Although the full scope of the impact of these changes depends on forthcoming regulations, the author anticipates that they will take POPS from being a public realm issue and density bonusing tool to a legislatively-recognized substitute for publicly-owned parkland in Ontario municipalities.

A summary of Ontario site alteration by-laws, including their breadth and their limitations. The discussion of the limits considers, in particular, the coming into force of Ontario's On-site and Excess Soil Management Regulation (O Reg 406/19).

An examination of what it means when a contract with a municipality references acting reasonably, and how that can be balanced with municipal discretion, given the obligations and duties of municipalities.

The article examines cannabis regulation in Ontario from a federal, provincial and municipal perspective. The authors offer an interpretation of cases on point and limitations on municipal cannabis regulation powers (such as cultivation, production, and retail). This article may be of interest to legal representatives of municipalities and cannabis operators.

In the appealed decision of Thales DIS Canada Inc v Ontario, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice held that provincial procurement processes must conform to Canada’s obligations pursuant to international free trade agreements, such as CETA, in order to be considered reasonable. The factors contributing to reasonable procurement decisions are relevant to municipalities, who may wish to watch for the Court of Appeal’s findings on that question and any finding on bid dispute mechanisms.