Background
Minotar Holdings Inc. acquired land in Markham that included 60 acres lacking ecologically significant features. After those lands were mistakenly placed within Ontario’s Greenbelt in 2005, ministry staff advised Minotar that the error would be corrected during the Greenbelt Plan’s ten-year review. When the land remained in the Greenbelt, Minotar sued Ontario in 2017 for negligence, misrepresentation, and misfeasance in public office.
The parties settled in 2022. Minotar agreed to dismiss its action after Ontario removed 37 acres from the Greenbelt, while reserving the right to take available steps if the land was restored. In 2023, the legislature reversed that removal, terminated the settlement, and enacted retrospective provisions eliminating related causes of action, remedies, and proceedings, including claims based on misfeasance and bad faith. Minotar challenged those provisions under s. 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867. The Superior Court dismissed the application, and Minotar appealed.
The Court’s Holding
A 2–1 majority dismissed the appeal. Justice Miller, joined by Justice Zarnett, held that s. 96 is an institutional and structural guarantee protecting the superior courts’ narrow core of inherent procedural powers and subject-matter jurisdiction. It does not confer an individual constitutional right to pursue a particular cause of action or protect substantive rights from retroactive legislative change.
The majority concluded that Ontario validly changed the substantive law by restoring Minotar’s land to the Greenbelt, terminating the settlement, and extinguishing claims and remedies, even though the legislation targeted pending claims and covered alleged bad faith and misfeasance. The courts retained authority to interpret and apply the legislation, determine whether proceedings were barred, and conduct judicial review of administrative action. Unwritten constitutional principles, including the rule of law, could not expand s. 96 or independently invalidate the legislation. Justice Monahan dissented in part, concluding that s. 96 prevents legislation from immunizing public officials against claims alleging misfeasance in public office and bad-faith conduct.
Key Takeaways
- Section 96 protects the institutional role and core jurisdiction of superior courts, not a litigant’s substantive right to maintain a particular claim.
- A legislature may use clear language to retroactively change substantive law, extinguish causes of action and remedies, and target specific pending claims without violating s. 96, provided courts retain their protected adjudicative functions.
- Unwritten constitutional principles cannot be used to transform s. 96 into a source of unenumerated individual rights or an independent basis for invalidating legislation.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms the Ontario Court of Appeal’s restrictive view of s. 96 challenges to retroactive legislation. Even legislation that eliminates pending claims concerning alleged official bad faith will generally remain valid if it changes the law courts must apply instead of legislatively dismissing a proceeding or removing a protected judicial power.
The dissent identifies a significant unresolved fault line: whether the superior courts’ constitutional role as guardians of the rule of law requires preserving civil accountability for deliberate abuses of public power. The majority expressly left other possible applications of the legislation for determination on a concrete future record.