lenaitch
Senior Member
Enacting legislation that holds themselves harmless has become a bit of a favourite go-to for several governments in the past few years. I would love to see it constitutionally tested but, as you say, not cheap. It maybe more of an attractive option for developers with deeper pockets but it might leave them vulnerable to revelations of 'insider trading'.The legislation introduced by the government includes a prohibition on suing the government in respect of this decision.
In general, government cannot be sued for public policy decisions, but can in some cases of malfeasance.
The gov't bills preclude even that.
I could see those bills being challenged on that basis; but it would be a very expensive legal fight; and its likely one that even other parties would uphold; so I'm not sure how many will want to go there.
The gov't has any number of tools at its disposal to penalize what it sees as problem actors; so I would think there may be some reticence there.
Edit to add:
There is actually one lawsuit over the original McGuinty Greenbelt, that's been ongoing for ages........
The gov't bill specifically identifies that lawsuit and quashes it.
I'm not sure if that's a legal first, but its certainly very rare.
Governments having the common law right to freely govern has limits, we just don't know what they are in all cases.