Summary#

Bill 136, the Greenbelt Statute Law Amendment Act, 2023, is enacted as Chapter 22 of Ontario’s 2023 statutes. It amends the Greenbelt Act, 2005, the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001 and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Act; it also creates the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve Act, 2023 and repeals the 2022 repeal Act. Its stated goal is to restore specified Greenbelt and Oak Ridges Moraine designations and put the Duffins Rouge preserve covenants back in effect.

• The Greenbelt’s area is now set out in the Act rather than in a regulation. The Act also deems specified lands removed from the Greenbelt in 2022 to be Protected Countryside again, with specified natural-heritage and tender-fruit-and-grape designations.
• The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act now sets out the Moraine Area, and its conservation plan is deemed to apply as if the 2022 amendments had not been made.
• Certain Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve covenants and easements made, or purportedly made, on or before February 28, 2005, are deemed always valid. They bind land interests whether or not notice was registered when the interest was acquired.
• The laws sharply limit legal claims related to specified government actions. They bar most proceedings and remedies, including compensation claims, but leave judicial review outside the proceedings ban. The Greenbelt law also terminates a 2022 settlement agreement between Ontario and Minotar Holdings Inc.
• The bill extends good-faith personal-liability protection under the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Act to Facilitators and Deputy Facilitators appointed under that Act.

What it means for you#

• Owners of affected Duffins Rouge lands: A qualifying covenant or easement may bind you even if you acquired your interest before the new Act or no notice was registered at that time. What a particular covenant or easement requires depends on its terms.
• Owners and communities in the Greenbelt or Oak Ridges Moraine: The bill restores or confirms the specified land designations. It does not itself set out a process for individual applications or decisions about development.
• People considering legal claims: For the specified actions, the laws bar most proceedings and remedies, including compensation. Judicial review is expressly outside the proceedings ban, but the text does not guarantee that a judicial review application will succeed.
• Ontario’s Facilitators and Deputy Facilitators: They receive personal-liability protection for acts done in good faith. The bill does not create a new independent agency.
• Other residents: The bill does not directly change taxes, fees, benefits or front-line services.

Money#

No cost estimate or public spending figure is provided in the available material.

• The bill sets no spending amount or cost estimate for implementing its changes.
• It terminates a settlement agreement, but the supplied material does not state the agreement’s financial terms or the financial effect of termination.

What is unclear#

• The supplied material does not include the parent Acts, so the full current law and all changes to existing rules could not be verified against those Acts.
• The exact restrictions created by a particular Duffins Rouge covenant or easement depend on its wording; the bill does not provide those individual terms.
• The bill does not explain how disputes over whether a particular covenant or easement meets its definition will be handled.
• The bill does not give a cost estimate, explain the settlement agreement’s financial terms, or set out any new process for permits or development decisions.

Case for#

• The bill appears intended to restore specified Greenbelt and Moraine protections after 2022 changes. Putting boundaries and designations in statute may make those changes clear in law.
• Making qualifying Duffins Rouge covenants and easements valid again may support the land-protection arrangements they were meant to create.
• A possible argument for limiting claims is that it gives legal effect to the government’s chosen changes without leaving specified past actions open to most compensation claims.

Case against#

• The laws apply retroactively and bar most claims for compensation or other remedies over a broad range of specified actions. That limits legal recourse for affected people and organizations.
• Duffins Rouge covenants and easements can bind owners even when no notice was registered at the time they acquired their interest. The bill does not explain how an owner would learn the terms or resolve a dispute.
• The bill does not provide a cost estimate or explain the financial effect of ending the Minotar settlement agreement.
• The bill restores or confirms land designations but does not explain how those designations interact with individual development proposals or approvals.