3 total
Transfer of expropriated land for economic development did not confer an unlawful municipal bonus.
Two related actions challenged a municipality’s expropriation of commercial land that formed part of a 1,000‑acre assembly for a vehicle manufacturing plant.
The plaintiffs argued that the municipality unlawfully expropriated the property and conferred an illegal “bonus” on a private manufacturer by transferring the land at the expropriation price rather than its alleged fair market value, contrary to s. 106 of the Municipal Act, 2001.
The court held that the municipality had lawful authority to expropriate the land for valid public purposes related to economic development.
Applying the contextual approach to s. 106 adopted in Friends of Lansdowne Inc. v. Ottawa (City), the court concluded that the transaction did not confer an “obviously undue advantage” on the private enterprise.
Accordingly, the expropriation and subsequent transfer did not breach the statutory prohibition on municipal bonuses.
Costs of the appeal and underlying motions fixed at $210,000 on a full indemnity basis.
Following the disposition of four appeals, the Court of Appeal fixed the costs of the appeal and the underlying proceedings.
The appellant was awarded costs on a full indemnity basis, with the respondents ordered to pay a portion on a partial indemnity basis and the remainder to be paid from the Fund.
The court fixed the costs of the appeal at $75,000, and the costs of the underlying Rule 10 and Rule 21 motions at $135,000.
Claims for knowing receipt, knowing assistance, and unjust enrichment in pension maladministration action allowed to proceed.
The plaintiff, a member of the OMERS pension plan, brought an action on behalf of plan members against the OMERS Board, two corporations, and three former OMERS employees, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, knowing receipt of trust property, knowing assistance, and unjust enrichment arising from the outsourcing of real estate management.
The defendants successfully moved to strike several claims under Rule 21.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that while some breach of fiduciary duty claims were properly struck, the claims for knowing receipt, knowing assistance, and unjust enrichment should be allowed to proceed against all defendants.
The Court also held that the plaintiff was entitled to costs from the pension fund on a full indemnity basis, as the action was brought to ensure the due administration of the fund and for the benefit of all beneficiaries.
