Skip to main content

Judge dismisses court challenge to stop Ontario Place redevelopment

Ontario Place is pictured in this aerial image Wednesday, November 1, 2023. Ontario Place is pictured in this aerial image Wednesday, November 1, 2023.
Share

It appears construction at Ontario Place can now continue following a decision by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to uphold the Rebuilding Ontario Place Act. 

In the decision, released Friday, Justice Lisa Brownstone dismissed a legal challenge by Ontario Place Protectors, who were trying to stop the province's redevelopment by arguing that the provincial act was unconstitutional.

The act gives the government special powers to expedite the redevelopment of the site, including an exemption from the Environmental Assessment Act.

Ontario Place Protectors were granted a one-day hearing on July 19 and the province previously agreed to pause some work at the site pending the court’s decision on the matter.

In a statement released Friday, Ontario Place Protectors said that while the decision "acknowledges that government action can go too far," in this particular circumstance, it is not the case. 

“The difficulty many people will likely have with this ruling is that the government could not possibly have gone further than eliminating all remedies under all Ontario statutes”, Eric Gillespie, legal counsel Ontario Place Protectors, said in a written statement. 

In a statement, a spokesperson for Attorney General of Ontario Doug Downey noted that the court also “declined to grant the injunctive relief sought by the applicant.”

“Our government is pleased with the decision and eager to move forward with this important project,” the statement continued.

“As this matter is in the appeal period it would be inappropriate to comment further." 

With files from Chris Fox 

CTVNews.ca Top Stories

A man who has brain damage has a murder conviction reversed after a 34-year fight

A man who has brain damage and was sentenced to life in prison for the murder of a shopkeeper in London had his decades-old conviction quashed Wednesday by an appeals court troubled by the possibility police elicited a false confession from a mentally vulnerable man. Oliver Campbell, who suffered cognitive impairment as a baby and struggles with his concentration and memory, was 21 when he was jailed in 1991 after being convicted based partly on admissions his lawyer said were coerced. “The fight for justice is finally over after nearly 34 years," Campbell said. “I can start my life an innocent man.” Campbell, now in his 50s, was convicted of the robbery and murder of Baldev Hoondle, who was shot in the head in his shop in the Hackney area of east London in July 1990. He had a previous appeal rejected in 1994 and was released from prison in 2002 on conditions that could have returned him to prison if he got into trouble. Defense lawyer Michael Birnbaum said police lied to Campbell and “badgered and bullied” him into giving a false confession by admitting he pulled the trigger in an accident. He was interviewed more than a dozen times, including sessions without either a lawyer or other adult present. His learning disability put him “out of his depth” and he was "simply unable to do justice to himself,” Birnbaum said. He said the admissions were nonsense riddled with inconsistencies that contradicted facts in the case. At trial, he testified that he was not involved in the robbery and had been somewhere else though he couldn't remember where. A co-defendant, Eric Samuels, who has since died, pleaded guilty to the robbery and was sentenced to five years in prison. At the time, he told his lawyer Campbell was not the gunman and later told others Campbell wasn’t with him during the robbery. Lawyers continued to advocate for Campbell that he wasn't the killer and his case was referred to the Court of Appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission which investigates potential injustices. The three judges on the Court of Appeal rejected most of Birnbaum's grounds for appeal but said they were troubled by the conviction in light of a new understanding of the reliability of admissions from someone with a mental disability. The panel quashed the conviction as 'unsafe,' and refused to order a retrial.

Stay Connected