{"id":8086,"date":"2026-03-18T09:41:40","date_gmt":"2026-03-18T13:41:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/perlaw.ca\/?p=8086"},"modified":"2026-03-18T11:27:52","modified_gmt":"2026-03-18T15:27:52","slug":"limits-to-provincial-immunity-from-judicial-scrutiny-ontario-place-protectors-case-headed-to-the-supreme-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/perlaw.ca\/fr\/2026\/03\/18\/limits-to-provincial-immunity-from-judicial-scrutiny-ontario-place-protectors-case-headed-to-the-supreme-court\/","title":{"rendered":"Limits to Provincial Immunity from Judicial Scrutiny: Ontario Place Protectors Case Headed to the Supreme Court"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Supreme Court of Canada has been back in session since January 13, 2026, with hearings currently scheduled<\/a> through May 20, 2026. The Court has already heard one notable administrative law matter this term, <\/span>Democracy Watch v. Attorney General of Canada<\/span><\/i><\/a>, and several significant civil appeals are expected to proceed as the year unfolds, including <\/span>Facebook Inc. v. Privacy Commissioner of Canada (Federal)<\/span><\/i><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Among the most consequential cases on the Court\u2019s upcoming docket is a constitutional challenge arising from the redevelopment of Ontario Place.<\/span><\/p>\n

Supreme Court Grants Leave in <\/b>Ontario Place Protectors<\/i><\/b><\/h2>\n

On January 8, 2026, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal<\/a> in <\/span>Ontario Place Protectors v. His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario and Attorney General of Ontario<\/span><\/i><\/a>. A hearing date has not yet been set.<\/span><\/p>\n

The appeal centres on the redevelopment of Ontario Place, a prominent urban waterfront park in Toronto that has generated significant public debate. To facilitate the project, the Ontario legislature enacted the <\/span>Rebuilding Ontario Place Act, 2023<\/span><\/i><\/a>, S.O. 2023, c. 25, Sched. 2 (\u201cROPA\u201d).<\/span><\/p>\n

ROPA exempts Ontario Place from the application of several existing statutes, including the <\/span>Environmental Assessment Act<\/span><\/i><\/a> and the <\/span>Ontario Heritage Act<\/span><\/i><\/a>, and removes the City of Toronto\u2019s authority to regulate noise emissions from the redevelopment site.<\/span><\/p>\n

Constitutional Challenge and Lower Court Decisions<\/b><\/h2>\n

Ontario Place Protectors, a coalition opposing the redevelopment, brought an application before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice<\/a> challenging the constitutionality of ROPA. The applicants argued that the legislation impermissibly insulated state action from judicial scrutiny, contrary to section 96 of the <\/span>Constitution Act, 1867<\/span><\/i><\/a>, and that the statutory exemptions breached an alleged public trust obligation owed by the Crown.<\/span><\/p>\n

The application judge denied public interest standing and concluded that the constitutional challenge would fail in any event, noting that ROPA preserved the availability of judicial review.<\/span><\/p>\n

In March 2025, the Court of Appeal for Ontario<\/a> dismissed the appeal. While the Court of Appeal held that the application judge erred in denying public interest standing, it ultimately agreed that the constitutional challenge could not succeed.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Court emphasized that, although legislatures cannot remove the courts\u2019 power of judicial review as affirmed in <\/span>Crevier v. Attorney General of Qu\u00e9bec<\/span><\/i><\/a> and <\/span>Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov<\/span><\/i><\/a>, ROPA did not immunize either the substance of the law or the procedures governing litigation from judicial scrutiny. Nor did it impair the core jurisdiction of superior courts.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Court of Appeal also rejected the public trust argument, finding that no such doctrine has been established in Canadian law. Even if it were to exist, the Court noted, it would apply to Crown action rather than to legislation itself and would not be violated by the provisions of ROPA. The Court further observed that the judiciary is not an alternative forum for resolving political disputes.<\/span><\/p>\n

Looking Ahead: Why This Case Matters<\/b><\/h2>\n

The <\/span>Ontario Place Protectors<\/span><\/i> appeal raises fundamental questions about democratic accountability, the separation of powers, and the constitutional limits on legislative authority in Canada.<\/span><\/p>\n

More broadly, the case reflects a growing trend among provincial governments, including Ontario, Qu\u00e9bec, and Alberta, of shielding government action from legal scrutiny by pre-emptively overriding existing statutes or, in some instances, invoking the notwithstanding clause to limit Charter review.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Supreme Court\u2019s decision will provide important guidance on:<\/span><\/p>\n