Section 37 of the Planning Act

Section 37 of the Planning Act
Name	Section 37 of the Planning Act
Jurisdiction	Ontario, Canada
Statute	Planning Act
Type	statutory provision
Status	active

Section 37 of the Planning Act

Section 37 of the Planning Act is a statutory provision in Ontario that authorizes negotiated community benefits in exchange for increased height and density in land use planning approvals. It operates at the intersection of municipal bylaws, provincial policy, and private development, and has been shaped by decisions from municipal councils, the Ontario Superior Court, the Ontario Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court of Canada.

Overview

Section 37 enables municipalities such as City of Toronto, City of Ottawa, City of Mississauga, City of Hamilton, and City of London to adopt official plan policies that permit zoning variances linked to community benefits. It connects municipal planning tools used by planners from agencies like Ontario Municipal Board (now the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal), practitioners from firms involved in projects like Rogers Centre and First Canadian Place, and public bodies such as Metrolinx and Toronto Transit Commission. Prominent projects influenced by Section 37 regimes include developments near Union Station, Queen Street, Yonge Street, and King Street.

Legal Framework and Purpose

The legal basis for Section 37 lies within the provincial Planning Act and its integration with policy instruments like the Provincial Policy Statement and provincial plans such as the Greenbelt Plan and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. It is implemented through municipal official plans, zoning bylaws, and site-specific agreements executed under municipal authority in municipalities including Halton Region, Peel Region, and York Region. The purpose, as articulated in legislative debates in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and in municipal council minutes from bodies like Toronto City Council, is to secure public benefits—such as parkland, community centres, and affordable housing—in return for built-form concessions tied to iconic urban sites such as Nathan Phillips Square and Distillery District.

Application and Process

Municipalities adopt official plan policies authorizing Section 37 agreements, often involving planning staff, solicitors from firms like Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt, urban designers associated with practices such as Perkins&Will, and heritage planners when listed properties like St. Lawrence Market are implicated. The process typically involves rezoning applications, public meetings under municipal procedures from bodies like Toronto and East York Community Council, and negotiations culminating in registered agreements under the Land Titles Act or the Registry Act. Appeals by proponents or objectors proceed to tribunals such as the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal or courts including the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

Amounts, Agreements and Obligations

Agreements under Section 37 have produced diverse obligations: capital contributions for social infrastructure near transit hubs like Eglinton Crosstown, deductions for public art programs associated with institutions like the Art Gallery of Ontario, and rental commitments for non-profit operators such as Toronto Community Housing Corporation. Quantification of amounts has involved municipal formulae and negotiated figures influenced by comparable transactions in districts like King West and Harbourfront. Legal instruments used include zoning bylaw provisions, development agreements, and covenants registered against titles comparable to instruments seen in transactions involving Harbourfront Centre and large-scale redevelopments at Port Lands.

Case Law and Precedents

Judicial interpretation has been influenced by landmark decisions from courts and tribunals. Cases adjudicated by the Ontario Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada, and panels of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal have shaped permissible scope, enforceability, and standards for nexus and proportionality—concepts debated in matters involving parties like Dufferin Mall stakeholders and developers active in projects around High Park. Precedents reference statutory interpretation principles applied in cases involving municipal tools such as site-specific zoning and references to judicial reviews under the Courts of Justice Act.

Criticisms and Policy Debates

Critiques of Section 37 arise from urbanists, policy analysts, and community groups including advocates near St. Jamess Park-type precincts and organizations modeled on Neighbourhoods of Toronto advocacy. Debates focus on transparency, equity, and predictability, with commentators drawing parallels to inclusionary approaches in jurisdictions like London (UK), New York City, and Vancouver. Economists and law professors from institutions such as University of Toronto Faculty of Law, Osgoode Hall Law School, and Queen's University have weighed in on potential distortions in land markets, governance implications, and the balance between heritage protection at sites like Casa Loma and intensification goals embodied in provincial plans.

Amendments and Legislative History

Legislative amendments, ministerial directives, and policy guidance over time have adjusted the operation of Section 37, intersecting with reforms to bodies such as the Ontario Municipal Board and subsequent frameworks under the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Act. Key interventions trace to provincial legislation and provincial planning initiatives enacted by administrations in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and informed by commissions and inquiries similar in stature to provincial reviews of growth and transit policy. Municipal responses from councils in Mississauga City Council, Hamilton City Council, and Ottawa City Council have produced varied implementing policies, reflecting evolving priorities tied to regional plans such as the Greenbelt Plan and urban design standards used near landmarks like CN Tower.

Category:Ontario law