Douglas S. Colbourne

The Regional Municipality of Peel sought to expropriate a portion of the claimant's lands to construct an elevated water tower and transmission main to service projected population growth.

The claimant requested a Hearing of Necessity, arguing the expropriation was premature as the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment was incomplete and the site selection process was flawed.

The Ontario Land Tribunal found that the proposed taking was fair, sound, and reasonably necessary, noting that the Expropriations Act permits property acquisition before an EA is finalized and that the chosen site was the most suitable based on extensive studies.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct technical and typographical errors in its October 10, 2024 decision regarding a hearing of necessity.

The corrections updated the property description, the details of the rapid transit project, and the specific land area requirements for partial acquisition, temporary construction easements, and a permanent hydro easement.

The property owners requested a Hearing of Necessity under the Expropriations Act regarding the City's proposed partial expropriation of their property for a bus rapid transit project.

The City sought a permanent partial taking for a daylight triangle and hydro easement, as well as a temporary construction easement.

The owners argued the taking would negatively impact their ability to rent the property and reduce their front yard.

The Tribunal accepted the City's expert engineering evidence, finding the project serves the public interest by improving transportation capacity and infrastructure.

The Tribunal concluded the proposed expropriation is fair, sound, and reasonably necessary to achieve the City's objectives, noting that the owners' concerns regarding property impacts should be addressed through compensation rather than the necessity hearing.

The appellants brought a motion seeking an order for discovery, an affidavit of documents from the City, and an adjournment of the scheduled merit hearing regarding a $4.1 million cost recovery order for an environmental spill.

The appellants argued that the City's document productions were deficient and illegible.

The City opposed the adjournment but agreed during the hearing to provide a sworn affidavit of documents.

The Tribunal ordered the City to deliver the affidavit of documents in a legible and searchable format and maintained the scheduled hearing dates, finding that the appellants were entitled to file reply submissions and were not case splitting.

The appellants appealed a Cost Recovery Order issued by the City of St. Catharines under the Environmental Protection Act for over $4.1 million in expenses related to a spill and fire.

At a Case Management Conference, the appellants requested a motion date to seek additional disclosure of documents and invoices from the City, and an adjournment of the merit hearing.

The City opposed the adjournment and argued it had already provided extensive disclosure.

The Tribunal scheduled a motion for additional disclosure particulars but did not adjourn the merit hearing.

The City of Toronto brought a request for directions before the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Tribunal issued an amending decision pursuant to Rule 24.4 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to correct a technical or typographical error in the Appearances section of its previous decision issued on April 18, 2024.

The decision was amended to accurately reflect the counsel who appeared for the parties.

The City of Toronto brought a motion to adjourn sine die the site-specific appeal of Del Boca Vista Properties Inc. regarding Official Plan Amendment No. 573.

The appellant consented to the adjournment on the proposed terms, which would allow its site-specific development application process to unfold and avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.

The Tribunal granted the motion and adjourned the appeal sine die subject to the agreed terms.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding an application by 1851477 Ontario Inc. for a Class 'A' license to permit the operation of a quarry above the groundwater level.

The Tribunal noted the withdrawal of the Municipality of East Ferris and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry as objectors.

The Tribunal directed the remaining self-represented objectors to provide an Issues List to the applicant, after which a Procedural Order will be finalized.

The matter was adjourned to a five-day merit hearing commencing April 29, 2024.