COURT FILE NO.: 70/05
DATE: 20050621
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
CARNWATH, SWINTON & ROULEAU JJ.
B E T W E E N:
ANTHONY W. PYLYPUK
Applicant
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO, as represented by the MINISTER OF CONSUMER AND BUSINESS SERVICES
Respondent
J. Ross Macfarlane, for the Applicant
Sara Blake, for the Respondent
HEARD: April 25 & 26, 2005
THE COURT:
THE PYLYPUK APPLICATION
[1] Anthony W. Pylypuk is the Chair of an ad hoc committee of the Welland County Law Association. He opposes the actions of the Minister of Consumer and Business Services in these proceedings.
[2] Mr. Pylypuk challenges:
(a) the closure of the Land Registry Office in Welland for Niagara South (No. 59) and its relocation to the facilities in St. Catharines in the Land Registry Office for Niagara North (No. 30); and,
(b) the closure of the Land Titles Division in Welland for Niagara South (No. 59) and its relocation to the Land Titles Office in St. Catharines for Niagara North (No. 30).
[3] Mr. Pylypuk submits that when one looks at the historical, legal and legislative context of the offices in Welland, the Court should find the Minister had no authority to enact the regulations carrying out the closures and transfers.
The Minister’s Authority Under the Registry Act
[4] Before January 1, 2003, s. 4(2) of the Registry Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. R.20 required that there be “at least one land registry office for each county, regional municipality and territorial district”. Section 4(2) of the Registry Act was amended by the Municipal Statute Law Amendment Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 17, Sched. F, Table to strike out “county, regional municipality” and substitute “upper-tier municipality”. In the result, the Registry Act was amended to require only one land registry office for the Regional Municipality of Niagara, an upper-tier municipality. There is no longer a requirement to have a registry office in each county. There is no longer a requirement to have a registry office in the County of Welland.
[5] We reject the submission that the words “at least one” are ambiguous in s. 4(2) of the Registry Act. The words permit one or more land registry offices in each upper-tier municipality. As noted above, the Regional Municipality of Niagara is an upper-tier municipality. No other interpretation of the Registry Act and Regulation can be made that does not offend the principles of statutory interpretation.
The Minister’s Authority Under the Land Titles Act
[6] Sections 3(2)(b) and (c) of the Land Titles Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L. 5, authorize the Minister, by Regulation, to “describe the land titles division” and “provide for the location of offices for the land titles system”. The Act does not require that there be any connection between the location of an office and the geographical boundary of a land titles division, nor does it require that there be an office within a land titles division. The Land Titles Act does not prescribe any requirement, similar to ss. 5(1) of the Registry Act, requiring that the land registry office be located within the land titles division.
[7] Under the Land Titles Act, O. Reg. 428/99, ss. 2(1), 2(2), 2(3), Schedule names and describes the Land Titles Divisions, their locations and their geographical area. Before the Regulations at issue in this application, the Schedule to O. Reg. 428/99 named the Land Titles Divisions of Niagara South (No. 59) and Niagara North (No. 30) in column one, and provided for their locations in Welland and St. Catharines, respectively, in column two, and set out the geographical area of each land titles division in column three. Effective March 21, 2005, by O. Reg. 122/05, the Minister changed the location of the office for the Land Titles Division of Niagara South (No. 59) from Welland to St. Catharines. We find O. Reg. 122/05 is clearly authorized by s. 3(2)(c) of the Land Titles Act.
[8] The Court has no authority to review the Regulations passed by the Minister unless they are not authorized by statute or are unconstitutional. The remedy for the Applicant lies in the ballot box, not in the courts. Ontario Federation of Anglers & Hunters v. Ontario (Ministry of Natural Resources) (2002), 2002 41606 (ON CA), 211 D.L.R. (4th) 741 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 61.
[9] Counsel for the Minister argued the Applicant had no standing in this matter. For the purposes of this application, we have presumed, without deciding, the Applicant did have standing to bring the application.
[10] Mr. Pylypuk’s application is dismissed.
CARNWATH J.
SWINTON J.
ROULEAU J.
Released: 20050621
COURT FILE NO.: 70/05
DATE: 20050621
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
CARNWATH, SWINTON & ROULEAU JJ.
B E T W E E N:
ANTHONY W. PYLYPUK
Applicant
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO, as represented by the MINISTER OF CONSUMER AND BUSINESS SERVICES
Respondent
JUDGMENT
THE COURT
Released: 20050621