The appellants challenged Ontario's education development charge regime, which required payments tied to new development to fund growth-related school capital costs.
The Court held that the regime was constitutionally valid and dismissed the appeal.
In the leading reasons, the charges were characterized as indirect taxes but upheld as ancillary to a comprehensive provincial land-use planning and regulatory scheme under ss. 92(9), (13) and (16) of the Constitution Act, 1867; concurring reasons would have upheld them instead as direct land taxes under s. 92(2).
The Court further held that the scheme did not prejudicially affect denominational school rights under s. 93(1), and that legislation falling within s. 93 was immune from Charter scrutiny.
