Glenn Tautrims

The Claimant sought compensation for the expropriation of its property by Metrolinx for the Ontario Line transit project.

The Tribunal determined the highest and best use of the property was a high-density two-tower mixed-use development.

The Tribunal screened out the impact of the Ontario Line announcement under section 14(4)(b) of the Expropriations Act.

It rejected Metrolinx's argument for a lease encumbrance deduction due to the common control of the tenant and claimant.

The Tribunal accepted the Claimant's appraiser's market value of $187 per square foot, resulting in a gross value of $88,825,000, and applied a $1,000,000 deduction for environmental remediation costs, awarding a net amount of $87,825,000.

The claimant, a restaurant operator, sought compensation for injurious affection and disturbance damages resulting from the expropriation of a portion of its leased plaza's common areas and the subsequent construction of the Eglinton Light Rail Transit project.

The Ontario Land Tribunal found that the claimant was an "owner" under the Expropriations Act due to its interest in the common facilities.

The Tribunal held that the severe traffic disruptions caused by the prolonged construction directly resulted in a significant decline in the restaurant's customer counts and revenues.

The Tribunal awarded $571,891 for business losses incurred between October 2017 and March 2020.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claim for the loss of the business's overall value, finding that the restaurant's permanent closure was ultimately caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and its pre-existing reliance on the claimant's other shuttered restaurants, rather than the expropriation.

The claimant sought compensation for injurious affection under the Expropriations Act, alleging business losses caused by the respondent municipality's road construction projects.

The Tribunal found the claimant's financial evidence unreliable and preferred the respondent's expert evidence, which showed no causal link between the construction and the alleged revenue decline.

Applying the Antrim test for private nuisance, the Tribunal concluded the claimant failed to prove the construction caused a substantial and unreasonable interference or a disproportionate burden.

The claim was dismissed.

The claimant sought compensation for the expropriation of portions of its properties by the City of Windsor for a road improvement project.

The claimant claimed damages for the value of the lands taken, injurious affection, and business losses.

The Tribunal preferred the expert evidence of the respondent's real estate appraiser and business valuator over the claimant's experts, finding the claimant's experts' reports flawed and unsupported.

The Tribunal awarded the claimant $194,000 for the market value of the lands and injurious affection, and $13,644 for business losses, for a total compensation of $207,644.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal regarding compensation for the expropriation of contaminated land.

The Tribunal had determined the property's market value to be $290,000 based on a speculative value, rejecting the appellant's higher valuation due to prohibitive environmental remediation costs.

The Tribunal also awarded $51,683 for wasted costs.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the Tribunal's factual findings regarding market value and wasted costs.

The Court also rejected the appellant's argument that it was denied procedural fairness when the Tribunal refused an interlocutory motion for third-party document production.

The appeal was dismissed.

In an expropriation compensation proceeding for business losses arising from LRT construction, the respondent Metrolinx brought a motion for discovery to compel the claimant to produce further financial records and a better affidavit of documents.

The claimant argued the records did not exist because it had amalgamated with a third-party purchaser and its operations were merged.

The Tribunal rejected the claimant's arguments, finding that the financial data must exist in some form and is highly relevant to the business loss claim.

The Tribunal ordered the claimant to produce the requested financial materials and awarded costs to Metrolinx on a partial indemnity basis.

The claimant, a restaurant and bar, sought compensation for injurious affection under the Expropriations Act, alleging that the City's streetscape improvement project caused substantial and unreasonable interference with its business.

The claimant argued that construction noise, dust, and restricted pedestrian and vehicular access led to significant business losses.

The Tribunal applied the two-part test for private nuisance from Antrim, finding that while the interference was substantial, it was not unreasonable.

The Tribunal noted that reasonable access was maintained at all times, the City's conduct in managing the project and accommodating the business was reasonable, and the downtown commercial character of the neighbourhood meant some construction disruption was to be expected.

The claim was dismissed.