The Greenbelt Statute Law Amendment Act, 2023 (Bill 136) changes how several protected land areas are defined and enforces legal finality around past land‑use decisions. It enacts the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve Act, 2023 to restore and validate pre‑2005 covenants and easements (DRAPA covenants/easements) and amends the Greenbelt Act and Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act to put specific boundary descriptions and plan identifications into statute.
The bill also revokes several regulations that previously carried those designations.
Beyond mapping changes, the Act contains sweeping ‘limitations on remedies’ across the affected statutes: it bars most civil claims, damages, injunctions and foreign enforcement related to the specified land‑use actions (while preserving judicial review). It also terminates a specific settlement agreement and expands statutory immunity for certain Ministry facilitators.
For professionals, the statute replaces regulatory flexibility with statutory definitions, revives historic conservation instruments, and creates significant legal exposures and information‑asymmetry issues for land purchasers, lenders and insurers.
At a Glance
What It Does
The Act enacts the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve Act to deem certain pre‑2005 covenants and easements valid and binding; re‑writes the Greenbelt and Oak Ridges Moraine designations directly into statute (including maps/plans dated in the text); and inserts broad bars on civil remedies and proceedings related to those changes. It also revokes the prior regulations that listed the Greenbelt and Oak Ridges Moraine areas.
Who It Affects
Landowners, purchasers, lenders and title insurers with interests in the Duffins Rouge area and lands within the Greenbelt or Oak Ridges Moraine; conservation bodies holding historic easements; developers and municipalities engaged in planning under the Planning Act; and the provincial Crown which gains greater litigation protection.
Why It Matters
The bill shifts key land‑use controls from regulation into primary statute, revives historic conservation instruments that can bind successors regardless of registration, and closes off most legal remedies for parties harmed by recent removals or re‑designations—altering risk allocation for property transactions and land‑use disputes.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Schedule 1 creates the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve Act, 2023. It defines DRAPA covenants and easements as any covenant or easement an owner granted or purported to grant to a conservation body under the Conservation Land Act on or before February 28, 2005, for lands outlined in a 2003 plan.
The Schedule does two legally consequential things: it deems every such covenant and easement to have always been valid, and it provides that those instruments bind whoever holds an interest in the affected land regardless of when they acquired it or whether a notice was registered. The Minister may register a notice of the new section, but the instruments are binding even if no notice is registered.
The Schedule also contains an unusually broad clause limiting remedies: most civil claims and remedies arising from the enactment, amendment or repeal of the Act or related conduct are barred (with judicial review preserved and Crown‑brought proceedings excluded).
Schedule 2 recasts the Greenbelt Act by embedding a statutory description of the Greenbelt Area (referring to specific plans and parts by date and filing references). It adds a new statutory deeming (section 14.1) that treats the Greenbelt Plan as if certain lands retained the same designation and Natural Heritage System identification they had on December 13, 2022.
The Schedule reissues a comprehensive limitations‑on‑remedies clause (section 19) that lists specific categories of conduct and instruments—removals under prior regulations, Greenbelt Plan Amendment No. 3, and negotiations under Planning Act section 49.2—and bars most civil relief, damages and enforcement actions tied to those matters. It also terminates, by operation of law, a November 3, 2022 settlement agreement between Minotar Holdings Inc. and the Crown.Schedule 3 is a targeted amendment to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Act that extends existing good‑faith personal‑liability protection to Facilitators and Deputy Facilitators appointed under the Act.
Schedule 4 re‑enacts the Oak Ridges Moraine Area description in statute, inserts substantially parallel limitations on remedies (section 20), cancels a prior clause in the Act and adds a deeming provision that treats a provincial regulation as if certain recent amendments had not taken effect. Both Schedule 2 and Schedule 4 revoke the corresponding designation regulations so that the statute — not a regulation — supplies the legal description of the protected areas.
Taken together, the measures convert several regulatory instruments into statutory commitments, revive and validate historic conservation encumbrances, and sharply limit courts’ ability to provide private remedies for harms tied to these changes.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Every DRAPA covenant and DRAPA easement (pre‑2005 conservation covenants/easements in the Duffins Rouge map area) is deemed valid and binding on successors regardless of whether a registration notice exists.
The Act rewrites section 2 of the Greenbelt Act to embed statutory boundary descriptions and files specific plans (with dates and part numbers) into the statute rather than relying on Ontario Regulation 59/05.
Section 19 (Greenbelt) and parallel provisions in the Duffins Rouge and Oak Ridges statutes bar most civil remedies—damages, injunctions, specific performance and enforcement of judgments outside Ontario—for actions tied to prescribed Greenbelt/Oak Ridges/Duffins Rouge changes; judicial review remains available.
The statute expressly terminates the November 3, 2022 settlement agreement between Minotar Holdings Inc. and the Crown on the day the Act received Royal Assent.
The Minister may register notices in land registry offices, but the statutory deeming and binding effect of revived covenants/easements operates despite the Land Titles Act; registration is permissive, not a precondition for binding effect.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions and revival of DRAPA covenants/easements
This provision defines the geographic scope (Duffins Rouge map number 210) and the temporal cut‑off (on or before Feb. 28, 2005) for instruments considered ‘DRAPA’. It then ‘revives’ every such covenant and easement: the instruments are statutorily declared valid as if they had never been invalidated by the 2022 Repeal Act. Practically, that means conservation encumbrances that may have been erased or left uncertain by earlier legislative action are reinstated and treated as having continuous validity since grant.
Registration power and Land Titles override
The Minister under the Conservation Land Act may register a notice of the statutory revival in the land registry. Critically, subsection (3) says the instruments bind anyone with an interest in the land regardless of when they acquired it and whether a notice was registered—this explicitly displaces ordinary Land Titles priority principles and creates binding covenants that can travel with title even if unregistered.
Broad bar on remedies for DRAPA‑related claims
Section 3 prohibits causes of action and remedies flowing from the enactment, amendment or repeal of the Act or from conduct connected to the validity, effect or development of DRAPA lands. The clause removes access to monetary compensation, equitable relief and many procedural remedies for affected private parties (while preserving judicial review and excluding Crown‑brought proceedings).
Statutory Greenbelt boundary and plan deeming
Section 2 replaces the prior regulatory designation by embedding detailed descriptions of the Greenbelt Area directly in statute, listing specific plans and part numbers. Section 14.1 is a targeted deeming clause that pins the Greenbelt Plan’s treatment of certain lands to the Plan’s status as of Dec. 13, 2022—maintaining Protected Countryside and Natural Heritage System identifications and certain agricultural area labels.
Comprehensive litigation limits and termination of Minotar settlement
Section 19 lays out categories of conduct and instruments for which no cause of action arises—ranging from regulation amendments to plan approvals to communications by Crown officials—then denies remedies (including costs and enforcement abroad) and bars proceedings except for judicial review. Section 19.1 terminates the Minotar settlement agreement; the termination takes effect on Royal Assent, extinguishing that contractual settlement as between Minotar and the Crown.
Expanded good‑faith immunity for Ministry facilitators
This short Schedule amends the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Act to extend the existing protection from personal liability for acts done in good faith to Facilitators and Deputy Facilitators appointed under subsection 12(2). That reduces personal litigation risk for officials acting under the Ministry’s dispute‑resolution or facilitation framework.
Oak Ridges Moraine statutory designation and remedy limits
Schedule 4 re‑enacts the Oak Ridges Moraine Area description in statute, provides for public inspection of the plan, inserts a s.20 limitation‑on‑remedies clause materially similar to the Greenbelt provision, and adds a s.26 deeming that treats the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan as if certain recent regulatory amendments had not come into force. It also revokes the regulation that formally described the area, shifting authoritative source to the statute.
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
- Conservation bodies holding DRAPA instruments — their pre‑2005 covenants and easements are statutorily validated and can bind current and future landholders even if registration lapsed.
- The provincial Crown — the Act sharply reduces litigation exposure and preserves policy choices about Greenbelt and Oak Ridges designations by limiting private legal challenges and associated monetary liabilities.
- Municipalities and planning authorities — clearer statutory boundaries and plan identifications reduce regulatory ambiguity when applying provincial policy (for matters not subject to judicial review).
- Title holders who hold or rely on conservation easements — reinstated instruments protect the conservation purpose of those titles and strengthen enforceability against subsequent owners.
Who Bears the Cost
- Private landowners, purchasers and developers in affected areas — they face revived encumbrances, constrained remedies, and potential title surprises because covenants bind regardless of registration.
- Lenders and title insurers — the Land Titles override increases underwriting risk and may force reassessment of title search practices and coverage for previously overlooked covenants.
- Parties with pending or prospective civil claims tied to Greenbelt/Oak Ridges/Duffins Rouge changes — the statutory bars extinguish or prevent most non‑judicial‑review remedies, cutting off avenues for damages, injunctions or enforcement.
- The court system and administrative bodies — the Act may shift caseload composition (fewer private remedies to adjudicate) and present novel jurisdictional questions about the scope of preserved judicial review and retrospective application.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between the government’s objective to lock in land‑use outcomes and avoid fiscal and policy uncertainty (by reviving conservation encumbrances and shutting down litigation) and the countervailing private interest in reliable title, access to ordinary legal remedies, and the ability to negotiate or rely on settlements—a trade‑off between public policy finality and private property and contractual protections.
The Act combines two powerful tools—statutory deeming of past designations and broad retroactive bars on remedies—to achieve certainty for the Crown and conservation instruments. That certainty comes at a cost: parties who relied on the absence of an encumbrance or on ordinary Land Titles registration rules can suddenly find enforceable restrictions on land they own or finance.
The Minister’s ability to register notices is permissive, not mandatory, which creates an informational asymmetry: the legal burden travels with title even if registry entries do not. Title insurers and lenders will need to reassess search and disclosure practices for affected tracts.
The limits on remedies are unusually wide. They preclude awards of damages and equitable relief tied to defined categories of conduct and make those bars retroactive.
Judicial review is preserved, but most standard private law claims—tort, contract, equitable remedies, misfeasance—are unavailable. That raises difficult questions about the practical reach of judicial review (remedies available there are typically narrower and deferential) and about how courts will treat the Act’s retrospective effect in light of procedural fairness norms.
The termination of the Minotar settlement by statute illustrates the legislature’s willingness to set aside negotiated outcomes; that invites scrutiny about legislative interference with private settlements and the stability of government commitments.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.