Copeland et al. v. Ontario (Minister of Natural Resources), 2014 ONSC 620

• Judge: Kiteley, Nordheimer and Rady, JJ.
• Court: Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
• Case Date: January 14, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: 2014 ONSC 620;(2014), 317 O.A.C. 201 (DC)

Copeland v. Ont. (2014), 317 O.A.C. 201 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] O.A.C. TBEd. MR.010

Leonard Copeland and Danielle Genevive Soucie (and the persons listed in Schedule "A" to the Notice of Application) (applicants) v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as Represented by the Minister of Natural Resources (respondent)

(251/13; 2014 ONSC 620)

Indexed As: Copeland et al. v. Ontario (Minister of Natural Resources)

Court of Ontario

Superior Court of Justice

Divisional Court

Kiteley, Nordheimer and Rady, JJ.

January 28, 2014.

Summary:

The applicants were 285 cottage owners who owned cottages situated on land leased from the Government of Ontario. The cottages had been leased in Rondeau Provincial Park going back to 1894. The cottages were all permanent structures intended to be occupied for residential purposes. In 1986, the Government of Ontario through the Minister of Natural Resources made a decision to bring the presence of the cottages in the Park, and therefore the land leases, to an end. It did so by providing in each lease as it was renewed that the lease would terminate on December 31, 2017. It also passed a regulation under the Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act. The applicants applied for judicial review.

The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the application.

Courts - Topic 7502

Provincial courts - Ontario - Divisional Court - Jurisdiction - Question of law - The applicants were 285 cottage owners who owned cottages situated on land leased from the Government of Ontario - The cottages had been leased in Rondeau Provincial Park going back to 1894 - The cottages were all permanent structures intended to be occupied for residential purposes - In 1986, the Government of Ontario through the Minister of Natural Resources (the respondent) made a decision to bring the presence of the cottages in the Park, and therefore the land leases, to an end - It did so by providing in each lease as it was renewed that the lease would terminate on December 31, 2017 - It also passed a regulation (now O. Reg. 347/07) under the Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act - The applicants applied for judicial review, asserting that the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) applied to the leases and that the termination date was invalid because it conflicted with provisions of the RTA - The respondent contended that the Divisional Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application - Rather, the respondent said that the issues raised by the applicants should be dealt with by the Landlord and Tenant Board under the RTA or by a single judge of the Superior Court of Justice under Civil Procedure Rule 14.05 - The Ontario Divisional Court rejected the assertion - The court had jurisdiction to hear the application - The validity of the regulation was the core issue raised in the application - When the validity of a regulation was raised, it necessarily raised the issue whether the Government had the power or right to make the regulation - This was within the court's jurisdiction - As the other declarations sought were directly related to the exercise of that power or right, if the validity of the regulation came within the court's jurisdiction, then those issues also came within its jurisdiction if they were necessary adjuncts to the determination of the validity of the regulation - See paragraphs 5 to 22.

Landlord and Tenant - Topic 6567.2

Termination, forfeiture and reentry - Right of termination - By landlord - Where premises must be vacated to comply with order of government authority - The applicants were 285 cottage owners who owned cottages situated on land leased from the Government of Ontario - The cottages had been leased in Rondeau Provincial Park going back to 1894 - The cottages were all permanent structures intended to be occupied for residential purposes - In 1986, the Government of Ontario through the Minister of Natural Resources (the respondent) made a decision to bring the presence of the cottages in the Park, and therefore the land leases, to an end - It did so by providing in each lease as it was renewed that the lease would terminate on December 31, 2017 - It also passed a regulation (now O. Reg. 347/07) under the Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act - The applicants applied for judicial review, asserting that the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) applied to the leases and that the termination date was invalid because it conflicted with provisions of the RTA - The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the application - The respondent was acting entirely within its authority to pass O. Reg. 347/07 and thus achieve the Province's goal of eliminating residential occupation of park lands - The regulation was not invalidated by a conflict with other legislation because no conflict arose between the regulation and the provisions of the RTA since the RTA did not apply - It also followed that the respondent had the authority to terminate the existing leases as it had done to accord with the goal of the regulation - See paragraphs 23 to 39.

Statutes - Topic 5362

Operation and effect - Delegated legislation - Regulations - Validity of - General principles - [See Courts - Topic 7502 ].

Cases Noticed:

Tranchemontagne v. Disability Support Program (Ont.) et al., [2006] 1 S.C.R. 513; 347 N.R. 144; 210 O.A.C. 267; 2006 SCC 14, dist. [para. 13].

Friends of the Oldman River Society v. Canada (Minister of Transport and Minister of Fisheries and Oceans), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 3; 132 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 14].

Ontario Association of Professional Engineers et al. v. Ontario (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing) et al. (2007), 225 O.A.C. 287; 284 D.L.R.(4th) 322 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 14].

Matthews v. Algoma Timberlakes Corp. (2010), 266 O.A.C. 261; 102 O.R.(3d) 590 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Wheeler et al. v. Ontario (Minister of Natural Resources) (2005), 197 O.A.C. 117; 75 O.R.(3d) 113 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 24].

CNCP Telecommunications v. Alberta Government Telephones and CRTC, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 225; 98 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 32].

Counsel:

D. Kirwin and K. Peacocke, for the applicants;

L. Favreau and J. Parker, for the respondent.

This application was heard at Toronto, Ontario, on January 14, 2014, by Kiteley, Nordheimer and Rady, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court. The following judgment of the Divisional Court was delivered by Nordheimer, J., on January 28, 2014.