|
Standing - Public Interest Standing (4). Centurion Building Corporation v. The Shaw Festival
In Centurion Building Corporation v. The Shaw Festival (Ont Div Ct, 2026) the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed a JR, this where "planning applications were granted and a demolition permit was issued" regarding the old Royal George building in Niagara-on-the-Lake.
Here the court considered public standing, in this JR context:[22] To bring an application for judicial review, a party must have either private interest or public interest standing: Kilian v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2022 ONSC 5931 (Div. Ct.), at para. 41; Des Roches v. Wasauksing First Nation, 2026 ONSC 6578 (Div. Ct.), 17 Admin. L.R. (6th) 142, at para. 11.
....
(iv) Public Interest Standing
(a) The Test
[34] To obtain public interest standing, the applicant must show that (1) the application for judicial review raises serious justiciable issues; (2) the applicant has a real stake or genuine interest in the issues raised; and (3) the application is a reasonable and effective means of bringing the issues before the courts: Canada (Attorney General) v. Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society, 2012 SCC 45, [2012] 2 S.C.R. 524, at para. 37; British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Council of Canadians with Disabilities, 2022 SCC 27, 470 D.L.R. (4th) 289, at para. 28.
[35] These criteria are not “boxes that must be ticked” but interrelated factors which must be considered cumulatively in order to balance the preservation of scarce judicial resources with the court’s role in assessing the legality of government action: Ontario Place Protectors v. Ontario, 2025 ONCA 183, 175 O.R. (3d) 561, at para. 23; Downtown Eastside, at paras. 22-36. I am prepared to assume that the application raises serious justiciable issues, so I will focus on the other two criteria.
(b) Real Stake or Genuine Interest
[36] Establishing a genuine interest is a low bar and will be met if a party has a real stake in the proceedings or is engaged with the issues they raise: Downtown Eastside, at para. 43; Ontario Place, at para. 25. That said, mere concern about an issue is not enough.
[37] In most cases where public interest standing is granted, the party seeking it has a history of engagement with the issue or represents a number of people who are affected by it: Downtown Eastside, at para. 58; Ontario Place, at para. 25; Philosopher’s Wool Environmental Preserve v. Bruce (County), 2025 ONSC 3117, 60 M.P.L.R. (6th) 110, at para. 48. In this case, Mr. Colaneri has a history of engagement with the issues and made representations to the Town Council on more than one occasion. However, the applicant in this case is Centurion, not Mr. Colaneri, and neither Mr. Colaneri nor Centurion is joined by anyone else from the community.
[38] Centurion is a corporation. What stake it has in the proceedings or how it is engaged with the issues they raise is entirely unclear. Centurion has not established that it is currently building or intends to build anything in the area of the Royal George project.[4] More importantly, Centurion does not represent the interests of anyone other than Mr. Colaneri.
(c) Reasonable and Effective Means of Bringing the Issue Before the Court
[39] The “reasonable and effective means” factor involves a number of considerations, including the party’s capacity and expertise, whether the case is of public interest, whether there are alternative means by which the issue can be determined, and the potential impact of the proceedings on others: Council of Canadians With Disabilities, at para. 55.
[40] In his affidavit, Mr. Colaneri asserts that he has “over 15 years of direct experience in development, construction, zoning, severances, minor variances, site plan control, and municipal planning processes,” but provides no further detail. While he expresses various opinions on the planning process engaged in by the Town, there is no basis in the record to conclude that he has any particular expertise in this area.
[41] There is an obvious alternative means by which the issues in this case could be brought before the court, which is an application for judicial review by a party with a real and direct interest in it. The fact that the applicant does not have a right of appeal under the Planning Act does not foreclose judicial review: Yatar v. TD Insurance Meloche Monnex, 2024 SCC 8, 489 D.L.R. (4th) 191, at paras. 60-65. However, the court must be cautious not to undermine legislative attempts to streamline the planning approval process by granting public interest standing too readily: Ho v. Ottawa (City), 2025 ONSC 5428 (Div. Ct.), 63 M.P.L.R. (6th) 21, at para. 30.
(v) Conclusion
[42] For all these reasons, I am not satisfied that the applicant has private interest standing and I would not exercise my discretion to grant public interest standing to bring this application. ....
|
