Court File and Parties

CITATION: 2057183 Ontario Limited v. Director, Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks, 2025 ONSC 2079

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 256/24

DATE: 20250403

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: 2057183 ONTARIO LIMITED, HAROLD WESTENDORP and PAMELA POULIN, Appellants

AND:

DIRECTOR MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT, CONSERVATION AND PARKS, Respondent

BEFORE: D.L. Corbett, Faieta and Rees JJ.

COUNSEL: Leonard Levencrown, for the Appellants

Sarah A. Kromkamp and Isabelle O’Connor, for the Respondent

HEARD at Toronto: April 1, 2025

Endorsement

D.L. Corbett J. (Orally):

[1] This is an appeal from the decision of Ontario Land Tribunal (“OLT”) dated March 20, 2024, dismissing an appeal from the Director, Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (the “Director”), implementing an OLT-approved settlement of prior proceedings between the parties.

[2] The settlement of prior proceedings was set out in Minutes of Settlement which state that it embodies “full and final settlement and that the Appellants would not appeal any amendments to the Director’s [prior] order made in the accordance with the Minutes of Settlement.”

[3] In implementing the settlement, the Director revoked their prior order and issued a new order. The new order implemented the settlement substantively.

[4] The Appellant challenged this implementation on the basis that the settlement called for amendment of an existing order rather than replacement of that order with a fresh order. The OLT rejected this argument, reasoning that the substance of what was done takes precedence over its form, and finding that the Director’s new order was a continuation of a previous process and did not confer fresh appeal rights. The OLT concluded that it had no jurisdiction over a fresh appeal from the Director’s new order and that, in any event, the appeal had no prospect of success.

[5] The Appellants appeal to this court.

[6] In oral argument, the Appellants quite rightly conceded that there is no difference in substance to amendment of the prior order and its replacement by the current order. The Appellants also conceded that their concerns would be satisfied if this court quashed the new order, quashed the revocation of the old order, and directed that the old order be amended to read as the new order now does.

[7] We agree with the Director that the form of the implementation of the settlement is not material, and that the new order implements the settlement. Therefore, we agree that the appeal below, in substance, had no reasonable prospect of success.

[8] In light of this conclusion, it is not necessary to address the OLT’s jurisdictional findings. I would note, however, that the Director’s implementation of an OLT-approved settlement is subject to OLT oversight, as conceded by counsel for the Director.

[9] The appeal is dismissed, with costs to the Respondent, payable jointly and severally by the Appellants, in the amount of $11,550.00 inclusive, payable within 30 days.

“D.L. Corbett J.”

I agree: “Faieta J.”

I agree: “Rees J.”

Oral Reasons Released: April 3, 2025

Written Endorsement Released: April 4, 2025