|
Property - Real Property - Public Lands Act (PLA). Posendorf v. Ontario (Ministry of Natural Resources)
In Posendorf v. Ontario (Ministry of Natural Resources) (Div Ct, 2026) the Divisional Court dismissed a JR, this brought against the decision of the District Manager of the Ministry of Natural Resources to refuse "the requested sale and temporary occupancy licence" respecting some land governed under the Public Lands Act.
Here the court considers aspects of the Public Lands Act regime:The Statutory and Policy Framework
[17] Section 2(1) of the Public Lands Act (the “Act”) places the management, sale and disposition of public lands in the Minister. The Act does not prescribe criteria requiring the Minister or a delegate to convey Crown land to a private applicant. The District Manager’s discretion was therefore broad, although it had to be exercised consistently with the statute, applicable policies, the record and the purposes for which the power was conferred.
[18] The Ministry’s Strategic Direction for the Management of Ontario Crown Land - Policy, Policy PL 1.01.01, treats retention of Crown title as serving public purposes, including environmental protection, conservation and sustainable land use. It contemplates favourable consideration of dispositions that accommodate socio-economic development compatible with environmental and ecological integrity. Potential benefits include economic stimulation, employment and community development.
[19] The Ministry’s Policy PL 4.02.01, the Application Review and Land Disposition Process Policy, similarly states that dispositions should contribute to Ontario’s environmental, social and economic well-being through orderly use and sustainable development of public land. The policy recognises that objectives may conflict and that the Ministry must strike a balance.
[20] The public-facing “Buy or Rent Crown Land” information explains that the Ministry’s primary focus is to support the social and economic development of municipalities and Indigenous communities and to provide land for infrastructure. It identifies examples of applications that may be considered. It also states that the Ministry will not consider applications for new individual homes, dwellings, cottages or other private recreational purposes, or expansions of those uses or private properties.
[21] Unauthorised occupations are addressed in the Ministry’s Policy PL 3.03.02 and its accompanying procedure. A District Manager may resolve an unauthorised occupation through a disposition to the occupant where, in the District Manager’s opinion, the disposition would not confer preferential treatment or encourage unauthorised occupation as a means of seeking authority. A disposition under that policy must nevertheless comply with the broader land-disposition framework, including PL 4.02.01 and the Strategic Direction.
[22] The unauthorised-occupation procedure also contemplates voluntary compliance. If that cannot be achieved, the Ministry may invoke the statutory processes in s. 24 of the Act. Section 24 provides mechanisms for obtaining possession, removing persons or structures, dealing with buildings remaining on Crown land and recovering certain costs. At paras 27-41 the court provides a useful illustration of this rarely-litigated, but - in this age of homelessness [see the Charter s.7 mention at para 40] - increasingly relevant area of law.
. Henhoeffer v. Georgian Bay (Township of) [for numbered case cites see the link]
In Henhoeffer v. Georgian Bay (Township of) (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court confirms a municipality's jurisdiction to order a 'repair order' regarding landfill:[18] Evidently this indicated “the potential to violate section 27 of the Public Lands Act”:[22]27 (1) Except with the written consent of the Minister or an officer authorized by the Minister, no person shall deposit or cause to be deposited any material, substance or thing,
(a) on public lands, whether or not the lands are covered with water or ice; or
(b) on water or ice covering public lands. ....
The Township’s jurisdiction to issue the Repair Order
[37] The Township was correct in its determination that it had the jurisdiction to issue the Repair Order and to uphold that order as part of the review undertaken by its Council. The Municipal Act authorizes that Township to pass by-laws to prohibit or regulate the placing or dumping of fill, the removal of topsoil, and the alteration of the grading of land.[35]
[38] Pursuant to their authority, the Township has passed Site Alteration By-law No. 2014-72 which regulates the placing or dumping of fill and site alteration within the Township’s geographical boundaries including Shoreline Areas as defined by the By-law. The property owned by Roberta Henhoeffer is located within the area covered by the By-law.[36]
[39] The By-law authorizes the Director of Development Services, Manager of Planning or the Senior Planner for the Township or his or her delegate to regulate the placing dumping of fill through the issuance of a Repair Order requiring a person to rehabilitate the land in such a manner as they consider appropriate.[37]
[40] The Township’s authority to issue the Repair Order does not overlap with the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. The Ministry’s regulatory authority, in this matter, is geographically circumscribed as “shore lands” which is defined as “lands covered or seasonally inundated by the water of a lake, river, stream or pond”. Both the By-law and the Repair Order are limited to the lands within areas which are above the high-water mark and therefore outside of the geographic area of Ministry’s regulatory authority.[38]
[41] The courts have recognized and allowed for concurrent municipal and provincial jurisdiction in relation to Crown lands.[39]
|
