The first legal challenge against Ontario’s Strong Mayor Powers has come to an end, with a group of homeowners who opposed transitional housing on the hook for $22,500 in legal costs plus their own expenses.
The Peterborough challenge had no chance of success.
They were trying to argue that transitional housing units are not a “residential” use, but instead constitute an “institutional” use. Ontario’s Strong Mayor powers permit mayors to pass bylaws with only one-third support by a City Council if they bylaw advances the “Provincial Priority” of building more housing.
The terminology of the Strong Mayor powers is intentionally vague, and the Municipal Act extends the same protection against legal action to Strong Mayor bylaws as it does regular bylaws. Municipal bylaws can only be quashed for illegality or proven bad faith. (The bar for bad faith being so high that effectively no legal challenge can succeed.)
This saga began over a year ago when it became apparent that strong neighbourhood opposition to a planned six-storey 52-unit transitional housing complex had convinced a majority of Peterborough’s City Council to oppose the project.
On February 3, 2025, Mayor Jeff Leal issued a Strong Mayor Powers Directive instructing staff to draft a by-law fast-tracking the Brock Mission project and scheduled a full Council vote for the mayoral bylaw. Strong Mayor by-laws require one-third support to pass.
On Feb 24, Leal’s motion passed 4-7, the minimal threshold for a Strong Mayor bylaw.
Shortly thereafter, the opposing neighbouring homeowners incorporated as the Northcrest Neighbours for Fair Process Ltd. and filed a Superior Court action to challenge the one-third enacting vote by advancing their institutional use argument along with other arguments regarding the ‘anti-democratic’ nature of Strong Mayor powers.
The City and the Brock Mission filed a motion to the Superior Court seeking a security for costs order to ensure they could collect any future legal costs ruling. The Northcrest Neighbours for Fair Process Ltd. is a shell corporation with no revenue or assets, exposing the City and Mission to the potental of not being able to recover costs.
On November 20, Superior Court Justice Susan Woodley ruled there was no broader public interest in the action.
“The within application is not public interest litigation. Instead, the application is a matter of local interest to neighboring property owners who are concerned about the possible deleterious effects that the proposed facility will have on their property values and lifestyles,” Justice Woodley wrote, adding action’s “merits are questionable.”
Justice Woodley granted costs to both the City and Mission for their legal fees up until that date, and left open the possibility that Neighbours for Fair Process Ltd. could need to post further security for costs as the litigation continued.
Following this, the group decided to abandon its legal challenge and were forced to settle with the City and Mission. They agreed to pay $22,500 in costs. The group successfully raised the funds.
The case reflects the new reality of planning in Ontario.
The Ontario Progressive Conservative government removed third-party appeal rights from the Ontario Land Tribunal process. In the past, NIMBY groups could bog down development with litigation at the OLT (or the Ontario Municipal Board as it was previously known) without the risk of facing cost awards.
Strong Mayor powers are here to stay, the old days of the OMB are gone, and there are no remaining legal processes for NIMBY opponents to leverage against political decisions.
As for the merits of this use of Strong Mayor powers, I do not live in Peterborough and do not have an opinion on this specific situation.
With the exception of Toronto, none of Ontario’s other mayors enjoy democratic legitimacy in using the powers. When they were elected in October 2022, Strong Mayor powers were limited to Toronto. Voters did not elect them with these powers in mind.
This will change in October 2026 when voters across Ontario choose their mayors for the 2026-30 term.
Ultimately, the decision on the legitimacy of the exercise of political powers will also be made at the ballot box.
Production Details
v. 1.0.0
Published: January 2, 2026
Last updated: January 2, 2026
Author: Joey Coleman
Update Record
v. 1.0.0 original version
Recently moved from Peterborough but I have been personally affected by the so-called “strong mayor” laws, which compells me to comment.
These heavy handed procedures are indicative of the degradation of democracy that is happening throughout our world.
Such laws have been fabricated without the consent of constituents of the community, nor by anyone other than the party in power which it seems has been unduly influenced by habits of our Republican neighbours to the south. These laws diminish the will of the people and can be clearly seen to allow a totalitarian approach at least in some areas. Clearly these homeowners are being financially punished for attempting to partake in a democratic process.
History tells of “McCarthyism” when rational thought within a democratic nation was stymied by the use of of the word “Communist” These days the term “NIMBY” is being used in a similar manner to forego any rational discussions that may run contrary to the powers that be.
The problem I had with the project was the location. It is right beside a women’s shelter also owned by Brock Mission.