Stay informed with the latest insights and updates

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.

On October 31, 2025, the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (the “MECP”) announced the Province’s intention to create the Ontario Provincial Conservation Agency through forthcoming legislation. This article reviews these changes and previous changes to conservation authorities in Ontario over the past eight years.

Is a decision from a municipal committee of adjustment a matter of public or private importance? A recent trilogy of cases from the Ontario Divisional Court has split on this very issue, raising the important question of whether, and when, aggrieved third parties have standing to apply for a judicial review of such decisions.

Is municipal parkland immune from claims of adverse possession, and what role does the common law have in claims of adverse possession? In Kosicki v Toronto (City), 2025 SCC 28 (Kosicki), the Supreme Court of Canada (the SCC) answered these questions in a decision that likely has broader implications on the application of statutory law in Canada.

Municipalities in Ontario are often entrusted with broad legislative and administrative powers, including the creation and enforcement of local bylaws. However, the discretion afforded to them in how and when they enforce these by-laws can sometimes give rise to legal disputes. For plaintiffs contemplating a claim against a municipality for non-enforcement, however, the road ahead is steep. Unless the facts show more than a mere policy disagreement or dissatisfaction with local priorities, the courts are unlikely to interfere. The message from the judiciary is clear: discretion, when exercised reasonably and in good faith, remains a power of the Canadian municipal system.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body (the “TLAB”) stands as Ontario’s sole local appeals body for planning matters, ruling over appeals of variance and consent decisions from Toronto’s Committee of Adjustment (the “CoA”). Nearly ten years after the TLAB’s inception, the Body has had some successes but remains particularly limited by its role as an administrative tribunal.

Municipal service corporations (MSCs) allow municipalities to efficiently deliver key public services by leveraging distinct corporate structures authorized under the Municipal Act, 2001. This article provides a broad overview of MSCs, their governance, benefits, and the legal requirements municipalities must follow when establishing one.

Amidst economic uncertainty and a trade war, one thing remains constant: the Province of Ontario (the “Province”)’s attempts to boost housing supply. On May 12, 2025, the Province introduced Bill 17, the Protect Ontario by Building Faster and Smarter Act, 2025. Currently in its second reading, the Bill, if passed, would make changes to development charges, planning instruments, and provincial infrastructure development. This article explores these changes.

Galibier Materials Inc. v. Springwater (Township) establishes a potentially destabilizing precedent for Ontario’s planning regime respecting the duty to consult under section 35 of the Constitution Act. Galibier effectively opens the door to any indigenous or other advocacy group to come forward in any hearing, no matter how large or small, to claim that they represent interests that are potentially impacted by a proposal. The decision raises questions about the sufficiency of existing regulations to meet the duty to consult, and the role of advocacy organizations in representing First Nations interests.

The Court of Appeal case, Huether v Sharpe, 2025 ONCA 140, reversed a lower court ruling that had imposed an indefinite and ongoing "duty to monitor" upon municipalities until and unless a permit file had been “closed” (a term that does not even exist in the relevant legislative scheme). The Court of Appeal’s decision alleviates the requirement that a municipality must unduly search historic building files to confirm that permits were in fact formally closed, that were treated as closed.

In Newstrom Investments Inc. v Richmond Hill (City), 2024 CarswellOnt 16624, the Ontario Land Tribunal confirmed the long-standing principle that minor variance conditions must be “reasonably related” to the variance(s) applied for. Read on for a discussion of what this means and what the case was about.

Telecommunication carriers in Canada need municipal consent to install and maintain infrastructure under municipal rights-of-way (ROW) as mandated by the Telecommunications Act of Canada. Municipal consent is often granted to carriers via Municipal Access Agreements, however, the enforceability of certain provisions within these agreements can be challenged. A recent application before the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) could clarify areas of dispute and shape future municipal authority over ROW access.

The recent imposition of tariffs on construction materials has significant consequences for Ontario municipalities. Tariffs will drive up costs for infrastructure projects, requiring municipalities to adjust procurement strategies, seek alternative suppliers, and explore new cost-sharing opportunities. Re-evaluating budget projections, exploring local sourcing options, and revisiting risk allocation or procurement policies will be necessary for municipalities to adapt, minimize disruptions, and maintain budgetary control in an unpredictable global trade environment.

It has been over nine months since Bill 185, Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024, received Royal Assent. A recent case from the Ontario Land Tribunal raises the question whether the Province has struck the appropriate balance of streamlining municipal approvals, and providing recourse to landowners who are impacted by municipal planning decisions. In instances where the landowners do not consent to scope their appeals, is the Provincial intent of Bill 185 still being appropriately balanced?

Several Ontario municipalities have taken on court administration and prosecution responsibilities under the Provincial Offences Act (POA), but limited judicial resources have led to significant case backlogs and eroded public confidence in the justice system. The financial burden on municipalities has increased, while fines and penalties have remained unchanged for over two decades, making the current system unsustainable. To address these challenges, there is growing support for shifting minor infractions to an Administrative Monetary Penalty (AMP) system, freeing up court resources for more serious offences.

Pratibha Sivasithamparam and Kamille Champagnie share their diverse and hands-on legal experiences while articling with the Town of Caledon, highlighting their exposure to municipal law and various legal proceedings.

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.