Plaintiff unsuccessfully asks government ministry to commit to conservation planning process
The Superior Court of Justice of Ontario dismissed a $5-million claim brought against the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) and ordered the plaintiff to pay the Crown $35,000 in costs.
This case involved forestry operations performed by the MNRF’s subcontractor in July 2009 in the Lac Seul Forest in Echo Township, Ontario. This involved brushing and grading work as part of a forest management plan approved by the MNRF. The subcontractor trespassed on the plaintiff’s property, which pushed debris and small trees onto his land.
The plaintiff, who owned three wilderness parcels in the area, discovered the damage at the end of July 2009. He reached out to employees of the MNRF and its subcontractor. The men met thrice to discuss remediation efforts.
A handwritten but unsigned document dated Aug. 6, 2009 proposed a settlement including restoration work by the subcontractor through providing gravel, wood, and backhoe services.
The proposed settlement also wanted the MNRF to commit more broadly to a conservation planning process for Echo Township, to investigate wilderness values in the area, and to consider the buyback of third-party forest resource licences.
In November 2009, the plaintiff and other individuals formed the Eco Bio-Regional Wilderness Council, which aimed to influence the management of forests in Echo Township. The plaintiff made claims on the council’s behalf. In 2016, the court determined that the plaintiff lacked the standing to bring these claims on the council’s behalf, including any public interest claims against the MNRF.
In Hlady v. His Majesty the King et al., 2024 ONSC 4532, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice denied the motion of the plaintiff seeking a $5-million judgment. The court awarded costs of $35,000 to the Crown based on the plaintiff’s litigation conduct, including his pursuit of meritless claims and baseless allegations against Crown counsel.
The court ruled that the MNRF had fulfilled its obligations by remediating the physical damage caused by its subcontractor’s trespass on the plaintiff’s property.
Next, the court held that the plaintiff’s expectations of gaining influence over the management policies covering the government’s forests, based on the MNRF’s relatively minor tortious actions, were unrealistic and unsupported by evidence.
Any agreement to grant the plaintiff such influence would have been unenforceable as it would go against public policy and would improperly fetter the MNRF’s discretion in managing important public resources, the court said.
The court found the plaintiff’s claims inflated and exaggerated. The court noted that the plaintiff, rather than focusing on any realistic development efforts over his own lands, instead chose to focus on this lengthy litigation that could not have impacted his economic plans or his ability to maximize property value.
