Court File and Parties

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO DATE: 20230609 DOCKET: COA-22-CV-0311

Doherty, Favreau and Monahan JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Upper Canada Land Titles and Patent Research Initiative Applicant (Appellant)

and

Regional Municipality of Niagara a.k.a. Niagara Region, Attorney General of Province of Ontario, the Attorney General of Canada Respondents (Respondents)

Counsel: Rory Barnable, for the appellant Brian Duxbury and Joshua Perrell, for the respondents

Heard and released orally: June 5, 2023

On appeal from judgment of Justice R.J. Nightingale of the Superior Court of Justice, dated September 19, 2022.

Reasons for Decision

[1] We are in substantial agreement with the application judge. Like him, we are prepared to assume, without deciding, that the applicant has standing.

[2] It is conceded that the Province has the power to pass laws applicable to property, including property granted under a Crown patent. The Province has exercised its powers under the Municipal Act and has delegated to the respondent the power to pass by-laws prohibiting and regulating the destruction or injury of trees and woodlands designated in the by-law.

[3] We are satisfied the by-law making authority under the Act is clear and was properly exercised in this case. We do not accept the argument that the by-law could only be valid if specific reference was made to the Crown patent, either in s. 135 of the Municipal Act, or in the language of the specific by-law.

[4] In addition, the by-law does not conflict with the Crown patent. The Crown patent is not a legislative Act, but rather a grant of title to the lands in issue pursuant to the Crown’s prerogative. The patent gives the owner of the lands all of the property rights that normally flow from ownership of private property. However, it does not immunize the lands or the owners of the lands from regulation by the municipality in accordance with the powers under the Municipal Act over activities that are allowed on the property. Accordingly, s. 14(1)(b) of the Municipal Act has no application on the facts of this case.

[5] The appellant did not pursue the vagueness argument.

[6] The appeal is dismissed. As agreed on by counsel, the respondent is entitled to costs in the amount of $15,000, inclusive of disbursements and relevant taxes.

“Doherty J.A.”

“L. Favreau J.A.”

“P.J. Monahan J.A.”