This bill adds a single limiting provision to the Greenbelt Act, 2005 that prevents the Minister and the Lieutenant Governor in Council from removing land from the Greenbelt Area, from removing land from the application of the Greenbelt Plan, or from removing a Protected Countryside designation. It treats any action that contravenes that bar as if it never occurred and expressly nullifies a named regulation made in late 2022.
The measure is retroactive to December 13, 2022 and also repeals three existing subsections of the Act. For anyone tracking land‑use entitlements, approvals issued on the basis of the late‑2022 changes, or the province’s authority to change Greenbelt boundaries, this bill changes the legal baseline and raises immediate questions about the status of transactions, approvals, and administrative processes completed since that date.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill inserts a statutory prohibition on the Minister and the Lieutenant Governor in Council from removing land from the Greenbelt Area, from removing land from the Greenbelt Plan’s application, or from stripping the Protected Countryside designation. It declares any contrary action to be void ab initio and specifically nullifies Ontario Regulation 567/22.
Who It Affects
Provincial planning authorities, landowners and developers with properties targeted for removal or redesignation, municipalities that processed planning approvals after December 13, 2022, and environmental or community groups with interests in Greenbelt protections are directly affected.
Why It Matters
By locking Greenbelt boundaries through statute and applying that lock retroactively, the bill removes an executive route to change protections and replaces it with a legal fiction that prior regulatory changes never occurred — a move that realigns provincial authority over land‑use and creates immediate operational and legal consequences for planning and development decisions taken since December 2022.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill is short and surgical: it adds one new section to the Greenbelt Act that forbids the province’s executive from taking three specific kinds of actions — excising land from the Greenbelt Area, removing land from the reach of the Greenbelt Plan, or stripping land of its Protected Countryside designation. That absolute prohibition applies to both future and past acts because the bill also declares that anything done in breach of the prohibition "is deemed never to have been done."
The text singles out Ontario Regulation 567/22 — the late‑2022 regulation that amended the designation of the Greenbelt Area — and says it is deemed never to have been made or filed. The bill also repeals three subsections from the existing Act, and contains a commencement clause deeming the entire Act to have been in force as of December 13, 2022.
Finally, it sets a short title: the Hands Off the Greenbelt Act, 2023.Operationally, the bill performs two legal acts at once: it narrows future executive power by statute, and it uses retroactive invalidation to erase a recent regulatory change from the legal record. That creates a changed starting point for any statutory interpretation, approvals, land transfers, or municipal actions that referenced the now‑void regulation or other contravening acts taken after the December 2022 date.Because the measure does not provide transitional rules or specify how to unwind actions taken under the nullified regulation, it leaves questions about approvals granted, statutory appeals, permits issued, and any contractual or property transactions that relied on the removed or redesignated status.
The repeal of three subsections also alters the Act’s structure — potentially removing procedural authorities or exceptions that supported earlier amendments — but the bill does not replace them or add implementing detail.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill inserts section 1.1 into the Greenbelt Act, prohibiting the Minister and the Lieutenant Governor in Council from removing land from the Greenbelt Area, the Greenbelt Plan’s application, or the Protected Countryside designation.
Section 1.1(2) declares that anything done in contravention of the prohibition — including making or filing a regulation or amending the Greenbelt Plan — is deemed never to have been done.
Section 1.1(3) specifically deems Ontario Regulation 567/22 (the late‑2022 regulation changing Greenbelt designation) never to have been made or filed.
The bill expressly repeals three existing provisions of the Greenbelt Act: subsection 2(4), subsection 12(2), and subsection 13(7).
The Act is deemed to have come into force on December 13, 2022, making its prohibitions retroactive to that date.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Statutory ban on removing Greenbelt status
This paragraph sets out the core prohibition: neither the Minister nor the Lieutenant Governor in Council may take any action under the Act that would remove land from the Greenbelt Area, remove land from the Greenbelt Plan’s application, or remove a Protected Countryside designation. Practically, it eliminates a delegated, executive pathway for altering Greenbelt boundaries or designations — any future change must come through a different statutory route (for example, primary legislation), or not at all.
Deeming clause that voids contrary acts
This clause creates a legal fiction: actions taken in breach of the ban are treated as if they never occurred. That is stronger than a simple repeal or suspension; it erases the legal existence of the contravening act. For administrators and tribunals, that raises immediate evidentiary and procedural questions about how to treat decisions, permits, or bylaws that referenced the now‑void action.
Express nullification of Ontario Regulation 567/22
Instead of relying solely on the general deeming rule, the bill names Ontario Regulation 567/22 and declares it never to have been made or filed. Naming a specific regulation removes ambiguity about the bill’s immediate target and has the practical effect of undoing the legal basis for any actions or approvals that followed that regulation.
Removal of three existing Greenbelt Act subsections
The bill repeals subsections 2(4), 12(2), and 13(7) of the Greenbelt Act. The text does not explain why these particular clauses are removed or supply replacements, so their repeal may change procedural authorities, definitions, or exceptions in the Act’s existing framework. Readers with operational responsibilities should review the current Act to identify what those subsections did and how their removal alters administrative or decision‑making paths.
Retroactive commencement and short title
The bill’s commencement clause deems it in force as of December 13, 2022, making its prohibitions retroactive to that date. The short title establishes the act’s public name. Retroactive commencement amplifies the bill’s practical impact because it reaches back to cover the period when Ontario Regulation 567/22 and any related actions took place.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Environmental and conservation organizations — they gain statutory protection that prevents executive boundary changes and restores pre‑December 13, 2022 Greenbelt designations, aligning legal status with conservation goals.
- Municipalities and local residents near the Greenbelt — they receive a clearer, legally reinforced baseline for local planning and development expectations where Greenbelt protections were restored.
- Provincial planners and agencies favoring stability — the bill removes a recent source of regulatory flux, giving planning authorities a stable legal framework for decisions that depend on Greenbelt status.
Who Bears the Cost
- Developers and landowners whose properties were removed or redesignated after December 13, 2022 — they face loss of development opportunities, potential contract frustration, and financial exposure tied to the now‑void changes.
- The provincial government and legal services — the retroactive nullification creates likely litigation, appeals, and administrative work to unwind or reconcile approvals, increasing legal and operational costs.
- Municipal planning departments — municipalities that processed permissions or amended bylaws relying on the now‑void decisions must identify and correct affected files, possibly reallocating staff time and resources.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between locking in environmental protections for the Greenbelt by retroactively nullifying executive changes and preserving legal certainty for private parties and public bodies that relied on those now‑void actions: protecting a public ecological asset collides with retrospective disruption of settled expectations and the potential for costly legal fallout.
The bill’s retroactive deeming clause solves the policy problem of restoring Greenbelt protections quickly, but it creates legal and administrative complexity. Deeming acts "never to have been done" does not automatically resolve practical outcomes: approvals granted, permits issued, sales completed, and zoning bylaws adopted in reliance on the contravening actions may remain in the hands of private parties or municipal bodies.
Those parties will press for clarity on whether approvals are automatically revoked, whether permits must be reissued, and whether compensation or equitable remedies apply. The bill contains no transitional rules or express authority for provincial or municipal officials to manage or rectify ongoing matters tied to the now‑void regulation.
Retroactivity also raises conventional rule‑of‑law concerns. Erasing prior executive acts can affect third parties who acted in good faith and may trigger legal claims for compensation, judicial review, or constitutional challenges where property or contractual rights are implicated.
The repeal of three subsections without explanatory language further complicates implementation because it may remove procedural mechanisms relied on to make or challenge land‑use decisions. Finally, the bill is silent on enforcement mechanisms and on whether future governments can re‑establish the same changes via different legislative or administrative paths, leaving open questions about permanence versus political reversibility.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.