Bruce Trail Conservancy Wins Ontario Land Tribunal Ruling on Parkland Levy in Mono

The Ontario Land Tribunal has affirmed in The Bruce Trail Conservancy v. Mono (Town), 2025 CanLII 94252 that the imposition of a parkland levy condition by the Town of Mono (the “Town”) should be removed in relation to a Consent application which was sought by the Bruce Trail Conservancy (“BTC”) to facilitate the continuation of the Bruce Trail.

In 2024, the Town imposed a parkland levy condition on the BTC’s Consent which required:

“Payment of a Parkland Levy to the Town in an amount equivalent to 5% of the accepted appraised land value for the approved lot, pursuant to the Planning Act, to the sole satisfaction of the Town Treasurer”

The Consent in question before the Town sought to create a new lot from the approximate 25 acre parcel, of which 20 acres would be retained for the continuation of the Bruce Trail.

In the appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal, the Town took the position that the BTC was a “special interest group” and it was not in the public interest of the Town’s citizens, nor reasonable to exempt the BTC from the requirement of parkland dedication on the basis that increased usage of the Bruce Trail as a result of the Consent would result in a substantive increase in costs to the Town.

The Tribunal rejected the Town’s argument and agreed with BTC’s land use planner that“the parkland provisions of the Planning Act are only properly applied where an application generates demand for new parkland and not as a means for a municipality to “remedy general financial challenges.””

The Tribunal found that no additional parkland or recreation service needs were created as a result of the proposed Consent which would justify the imposition of a parkland levy condition in this instance.

The Tribunal noted the BTC’s mandate of acquiring naturalized areas for public access as further demonstrating the unreasonableness of the Town’s position with respect to their parkland levy condition as “the consent does not “trigger the need for additional parkland” and instead provides additional parkland to the municipality.” In particular, the Tribunal noted that both Town’s Official Plan and upper-tier Dufferin County Official Plan reference the Bruce Trail in their policies with respect to the preservation of natural areas.

The Tribunal rightfully noted that the BTC should be treated in a similar way to other organizations that are considered public organizations such as conservation authorities.

In light of the Tribunal’s decision, it is important to note the Tribunal’s earlier finding in Reynolds v. Cobourg (Town), which highlighted that the imposition of a parkland condition:

“allow[s] municipalities to respond to the demands for parks and recreation areas resulting from development and redevelopment proposals. They are not intended to be imposed on every proposal that could be classified as development or redevelopment.” (emphasis added)

The Tribunal’s removal of the parkland levy condition imposed in this instance recognizes the broad public benefit underlying the purpose of the proposed Consent in furtherance of the goal of a contiguous public hiking trail, the BTC’s mandate, and the importance of the Bruce Trail generally, noting:

“The Bruce Trail is over 1300 kilometers (“km”) long and allows people to explore the Niagara Escarpment. The Trail is free to the public and the provincial mandate to secure the Trail is outlined in the NEP. At this time, approximately 72% of the Trail is secured and funds to acquire additional lands primarily come from donations and individual contributions.”

Conclusion

This decision is a timely reminder that it is important for municipalities to recognize the purpose underlying parkland dedication outlined in the Planning Act and when it is appropriate to impose such a condition on development.