Christel Higgs

The moving party, 1450638 Ontario Inc., brought a refusals motion arising from cross-examinations in an expropriation application.

Metrolinx had expropriated the moving party's property and offered $1.00 in compensation based on alleged environmental contamination, despite an initial appraisal of $2.1 million.

The court ordered Metrolinx to answer questions regarding its communications with the appraiser and to produce draft appraisal reports, finding that the dominant purpose of the appraisal was to satisfy statutory obligations under the Expropriations Act, not litigation.

The court also ordered production of Metrolinx's expropriation policies but dismissed requests for information regarding other unrelated expropriations.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its claim for $20,000 in liquidated damages for the alleged breach of a non-export clause in a vehicle sales agreement.

The trial judge found the appellant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the vehicle had been exported.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence, including his decision to give little weight to an untested written statement from the manufacturer.

Metrolinx sought substantial indemnity costs against 1604945 Ontario Inc. following motions heard in February 2021.

Metrolinx alleged reprehensible conduct by the plaintiff's solicitor, including abusive remarks, failure to provide relevant law, and vexatious actions that unnecessarily lengthened proceedings.

The plaintiff argued costs should be left to the trial judge and denied reprehensible conduct.

The court found the plaintiff's counsel's conduct, particularly towards Metrolinx's female counsel, unprofessional and awarded Metrolinx substantial indemnity costs of $47,270.75, reduced by $5,000 for Metrolinx's non-compliance with page limits for submissions.

The plaintiff sought clarification of a previous judgment regarding the specific lands subject to an easement dispute, and moved for a further and better affidavit of documents from the defendant regarding its construction plans.

The defendant requested production of the plaintiff's full commercial leases.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion for further documents, finding the defendant's construction plans irrelevant to whether the plaintiff has an easement.

The court ordered the plaintiff to produce its full leases and clarified the geographic boundaries of the subject lands.

The plaintiff, 1604945 Ontario Inc., sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent Metrolinx from interfering with its use of a "laneway" on Metrolinx's property, over which the plaintiff claimed a prescriptive easement.

Metrolinx, a Crown Agency, intended to use the land for major public transit infrastructure projects.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding no serious issue to be tried regarding the prescriptive easement claim, no irreparable harm to the plaintiff, and that the balance of convenience strongly favored Metrolinx due to the public benefit and significant costs associated with delaying the infrastructure projects.

The court emphasized that federal railway legislation prevented the acquisition of prescriptive easements over federal railway lands and that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence of continuous, uninterrupted use or a proper legal description of the claimed easement.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a default judgment obtained by the plaintiff for unpaid shipping and handling fees.

The corporate defendant failed to provide a valid explanation for its default and did not raise an arguable defence, so the motion was dismissed as against it.

However, the personal defendant raised an arguable defence of unconscionability regarding a personal guarantee he signed without legal advice to secure the release of vehicles held by the plaintiff.

The court set aside the default judgment against the personal defendant, allowing him to defend the action solely on the basis of unconscionability.

Metrolinx applied for a warrant to take possession of expropriated lands, while the respondent landlords and tenants applied to postpone possession, arguing Metrolinx failed to make a valid, good-faith offer of compensation under s. 25 of the Expropriations Act.

Metrolinx had offered $1.00 due to alleged environmental contamination but refused to answer questions or provide environmental reports during examinations.

The respondents sought an adjournment to bring a refusals motion before a Master.

The court granted the adjournment, finding the respondents had a reasonable basis to test whether Metrolinx's offer was made in good faith.

The parties disputed the interpretation of a rent-reset clause in two 100-year ground leases.

The landlord appealed a Superior Court decision that set aside an arbitral award valuing the lands based on a hypothetical freehold condominium development.

The tenants cross-appealed, arguing the leasehold interest should be valued and seeking a new arbitral panel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and cross-appeals, holding that issue estoppel applied from a 1993 decision between the parties, meaning the lands must be valued as a freehold interest but excluding the potential for freehold condominium development because the lands are subject to a lease.

The court also affirmed remitting the matter to the original arbitral panel.

The respondent school board expropriated the appellant's property to build a new secondary school.

The board later authorized a land swap with the city to facilitate a joint development on the site.

The appellant argued this triggered section 41(1) of the Expropriations Act, requiring the board to offer the property back because it was no longer needed for the board's purposes.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the substantive appeal, finding the board had not abandoned its purpose of building a school and related amenities.

However, the court allowed the costs appeal, reducing the application judge's costs award to the partial indemnity amount originally sought by the board.

The applicant sought to compel the respondent school board to comply with s. 41(1) of the Expropriations Act after expropriated lands intended for a school were proposed to be conveyed to a municipality for a recreation facility and seniors’ centre use integrated with the school project.

The applicant argued that once the land was no longer needed for the original expropriation purpose, the respondent was required to provide notice and an election to reacquire the property.

The court held that the board had not abandoned the lands and that the proposed recreational and related facilities fell within the stated purpose of operating a school and related amenities, particularly given the broad provisions of the Education Act.

The application, including the request for temporary injunctive relief, was dismissed, and the respondent was awarded costs.

The tenants under two long-term ground leases appealed a majority arbitration award determining the fair market value of the lands for rent re-set purposes.

The court upheld the arbitrators' finding that the freehold interest, not the leasehold interest, was to be valued.

However, the court found the arbitrators erred in law by including the potential value of a freehold residential condominium project in the valuation, as a prior Divisional Court decision between the parties established that development potential unavailable to the tenants due to legal restrictions must be excluded.

Finding that issue estoppel applied to this prior determination, the court set aside the arbitration award and ordered a new hearing.

The Industry Coalition for Environmental Fairness Inc. (ICEF) and the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario brought motions for leave to intervene in a judicial review of an Environmental Review Tribunal decision.

The underlying judicial review concerned the test for leave to appeal under the Environmental Bill of Rights regarding certificates of approval issued to a cement company.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that ICEF lacked a direct interest and would not make a useful contribution without causing delay, and that the Environmental Commissioner's proposed intervention would not provide a different perspective from the existing parties and would likely prejudice them.