Part of the controversial redevelopment of Ontario Place has been temporarily stopped after a group trying to preserve the site on Toronto’s waterfront was granted a legal hearing to challenge the overhaul on constitutional grounds.
Ontario Place Protectors is set to argue that the Rebuilding Ontario Place Act is unconstitutional because it exempts the provincial government from judicial oversight and breaches public trust.
Lawyers for the group, a coalition of heritage, architectural and cultural organizations as well as private citizens, will make their case during an all-day hearing at the Ontario Superior Court in Toronto on July 19.
Until then, the provincial government has consented to halt “any permanent destruction of trees, shrubs, or buildings” at Ontario Place, although a statement from Ontario Attorney General Doug Downey’s office seems to suggest that other types of construction work could still proceed.
“There is a hearing date on the Ontario Place Protectors claim scheduled for July 19, 2024, the province has entered into a voluntary undertaking to pause specific activities until that hearing date,” Downey’s press secretary wrote in an email statement.
“As this matter is currently before the courts, it would be inappropriate to comment further.”
Work on the Ontario Place redevelopment project has been temporarily paused after a group hoping to preserve the site won an injunction preventing further construction until a court hearing on July 19. CBC’s Clara Pasieka explains.
Work began in June to turn Ontario Place’s West Island into a sprawling spa and indoor waterpark owned and operated by the Austria-based company Therme. The larger site will also be home to a revamped Budweiser Stage concert venue and a new Ontario Science Centre.
Eric Gillespie, the lawyer representing Ontario Place Protectors, said the Rebuilding Ontario Place Act gives the province sweeping powers to effectively bypass a number of laws established as environmental, heritage and cultural safeguards.
Gillespie said if the group’s constitutional challenge is dismissed, there could be consequences that reach far beyond the Ontario Place site.
“What the government has said here is basically all of the laws that have been developed over 50 years or so regarding environmental protection, regarding heritage and cultural protection, they aren’t going to apply at Ontario Place,” he said.
“But what does that mean? If you can do that — for essentially a health spa and waterpark — what about the next time the government wants to put in a landfill or a nuclear plant or build a new highway?”
Redevelopment exempted from some laws
The Rebuilding Ontario Place Act is part of the larger Bill 154, called the New Deal for Toronto Act, which was introduced in late November. The second and third readings were held on Dec. 5, and a motion was passed the same day to prevent any committee hearings on the bill. It received royal assent the next day.
The law expanded the powers of the infrastructure minister, exempted the Ontario Place redevelopment from the Environmental Assessment Act and stated that the Ontario Heritage Act will not be applied to portions of the redevelopment.
In June, an Ontario court dismissed a legal challenge by the advocacy group Ontario Place for All, which wanted to force the province to carry out an environmental assessment of a part of the West Island. The three-judge panel ruled the application could not move forward because of the Rebuilding Ontario Place Act.
According to Gillespie, another part of the July 19 constitutional challenge will centre around the doctrine of public trust, which says certain natural resources belong to all Canadians and cannot be privately owned.
“That land doesn’t belong to the current government, it belongs to the people of Ontario and to future generations and that creates a trust,” Gillespie said.
“But it appears that trust has been breached.”
At an unrelated news conference Thursday, Infrastructure Minister Kinga Surma said she couldn’t speculate about a possible outcome of the impending hearing because the matter is before the courts.
“I’m not able to comment, but of course we look forward to July 19,” she told reporters.