Photo credit: Steven EvansIn late July, a court decision in Ontario upheld the provinces claim to sweeping powers to redevelop Ontario Place, a provincial siteon Torontos waterfront originally designed by architect Eberhard Zeidler with landscape architect Michael Hough. The courts decision underscores how the current provincial government has put itself above the law, particularly with regard to heritage matters.Ontario Place Protectors case contended that the Rebuilding Ontario Place Act (ROPA), part of Bill 154, is unconstitutional in immunizing the Province from civil liability related to their work at Ontario Place. It also contends that, in declaring Ontario Place to be exempt from the Environmental Assessment Act, the Ontario Heritage Act, and the City of Torontos noise bylaws, the Province has violated the doctrine of public trustthe principle that the site ultimately belongs to the people of Ontario, and is held in trust by the Government of Ontario.While immunity clauses are not uncommon, Ontario Place Protectors argued that the one in ROPA is particularly extreme. The clause states, in part, that no costs, compensation or damages, including for loss of revenues or loss of profit, are owing or payable to any person and no remedy, including but not limited to a remedy in contract, restitution, tort, misfeasance, bad faith, trust or fiduciary obligation, any equitable remedy or any remedy under any statute, is available to any person in connection with anything [resulting from work under the authority of ROPA].Ultimately, the judge upheld the Rebuilding Ontario Place Act, agreeing with the governments lawyer that the buildings and land at Ontario Place are under the Minister of Infrastructures control, and that the government has a right to make, amend, and repeal laws, including exempting itself from its own laws.The judge did allow that judicial reviewa process by which courts make sure the decisions of administrative bodies are fair, reasonable, and lawfulwould be permitted under the Rebuilding Ontario Place Act. But the broad scope of exemptions may limit other civil and suits that can be brought against the Province. For instance, if in the course of the redevelopment, a contract is broken, a building code violation is found, or construction proceeds without stamped drawings from architects or engineers, there may be no straightforward legal recourse to address thiseven if the Province is in principle still obliged to comply with the Building Code Act, Architects Act, and Professional Engineers Act.The government could not possibly have gone further than eliminating all remedies under all Ontario statutes, said Eric Gillespie, legal counsel for the applicant. The overarching issue is this: if you can essentially eliminate all laws for Ontario Place, thereis now nothing preventing the Government from doing this for anything, including new expressways, airports, eliminating the Greenbelt, or any other government project.Bill 154 is just one way in which heritage and planning laws are being legislatively sidestepped by the present Ontario government. Ministerial Zoning Orders (MZOs), a tool that supersedes local planning authority, are meant for situations of extraordinary urgency. The present government has issued over 100 MZOs in the past five years; previous governments had issued about one MZO a year.As part of the More Homes Built Faster Act, which came into effect in January 2023, the Province amended the Ontario Heritage Act to allow the Minister of Tourism, Culture, and Sport to review and revise the heritage status of any property in Ontario. Moreover, it allowed provincial properties to be exempted from the requirement to comply with heritage standards and guidelines, if the exemption could be shown to advance a provincial prioritysuch as transit, housing, health and long-term care, other infrastructure, or another priority as prescribed by the Province.Had Ontario Place Protectors court challenge been successful, the contested developmentsan indoor water theme park by Austrian developer Therme and a doubling in size of LiveNations Molson Amphitheatrewould still have been allowed to go ahead as acceptable land uses. But they would have had to do so while respecting the cultural heritage of the site and the environment, including mitigating shoreline impacts, protecting trees, and preserving open space. This process may have resulted in a smaller set of facilities, carefully inserted into their landscape setting.Instead, following the court decision on the Rebuilding Ontario Place Act, the demolition of structures on the West Island of Ontario Placewhich had paused while the case was heardhas now resumed.As appeared in theSeptember 2024issue of Canadian Architect magazineThe post Editorial: Above the Law appeared first on Canadian Architect.