Ray Bower

The claimant sought compensation for the partial expropriation of its property by the Town of Tecumseh for road and service upgrades.

The Tribunal determined that the highest and best use of the property, both before and after expropriation, was the continuation of its existing commercial use, rejecting the claimant's proposed mixed-use redevelopment scenario due to a lack of evidence on financial feasibility.

The Tribunal awarded $332,515 for the fee simple taking based on a value of $73 per square foot, $44,435 for the expropriated easement, and $15,000 for injurious affection related to snow removal costs on the remaining lands.

Claims for disturbance damages were dismissed as premature.

The claimant sought compensation under the Expropriations Act for the market value of expropriated lands and damages for injurious affection relating to a septic system and the alleged loss of an unregistered easement for truck access.

The Ontario Land Tribunal determined the market value of the taking was $16,500.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims for injurious affection, finding no valid easement existed, truck access was not materially impaired, and the septic system issues were fully mitigated by the respondent's repairs and offer to reconvey the affected land.

The Tribunal also held that the respondent's offer to reconvey land did not constitute a Notice of Abandonment under section 41 of the Act.

In these cross-motions for costs following an expropriation compensation decision, the Tribunal considered the interaction between the Indemnity Principle under the Expropriations Act and the efficiency objective reflected in Rule 49 settlement-offer consequences.

The Tribunal held that an owner recovering less than 85 per cent of the authority’s offer is not automatically disentitled to costs, but discretionary consequences may follow where the owner unreasonably rejects a proper offer and pursues the claim inefficiently.

The Tribunal found the June 15, 2018 offer was a proper plus-costs offer, that the claimant’s non-acceptance was unreasonable, and that the claimant’s stale and incomplete expert preparation, procedural inaction, and wasteful conduct justified reducing its scale of recovery after that date and awarding the authority partial indemnity costs throughout.

The claimant received reduced costs, and the authority also recovered partial indemnity costs.

The City of Windsor expropriated a 3.04-acre property from the claimants.

At the compensation hearing, the claimants' counsel sought a last-minute adjournment and later moved to be removed from the record due to a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship; both motions were denied to prevent prejudice.

On the merits, the Tribunal rejected the claimants' appraiser's highest and best use analysis, finding it failed to consider physical and financial feasibility.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's appraiser's conclusion that the highest and best use was continued residential use, but adjusted the valuation by excluding a comparable sale made under power of sale.

The Tribunal awarded $394,272 in compensation for the market value of the expropriated property.

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.

The City of Windsor brought a motion for security for costs in the amount of $100,000 against the claimant, whose leasehold interest was expropriated in 1999.

The City argued the claimant was an inactive corporation with insufficient assets to pay a potential costs award.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the claimant had a prima facie case supported by three expert reports (including one from the City's own expert) indicating a leasehold advantage.

The Tribunal also found that the City's delay in bringing the motion until shortly before the hearing was prejudicial to the claimant, and that ordering security for costs could unjustly prevent a meritorious claim from proceeding.

The City of Windsor appealed a Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) decision awarding the respondents approximately $2.8 million in compensation for expropriated lands and injurious affection.

The City argued the LPAT breached natural justice by copying the respondents' submissions and erred in its treatment of Provincial Policy Statements (PPS) regarding environmentally sensitive lands.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the extent of copying did not rebut the presumption of independent decision-making.

The Court also found no palpable and overriding errors in the LPAT's factual findings regarding the impact of the PPS on the lands' development potential, the valuation of the properties, or the award of interest.

The plaintiff purchased a commercial property to operate a hair salon.

She sued her real estate agent and his brokerage for negligent misrepresentation, alleging the agent falsely guaranteed that four specific parking spaces on an adjacent lot were included in the purchase.

The court dismissed the action, finding the plaintiff's evidence unreliable and accepting the agent's evidence that he only provided an equivocal response and promised to follow up with the listing agent.

The court found the agent did not make the alleged unequivocal statements of fact.

The action was dismissed, with damages provisionally assessed at $7,696 for the value of the parking spaces had liability been found.

Following a 17‑day commercial trial in which the plaintiff obtained judgment for specific performance and damages exceeding its earlier settlement offer, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The plaintiff relied on Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that a written settlement offer transmitted by email triggered substantial indemnity costs consequences.

The court held that the email constituted a valid Rule 49 offer notwithstanding the “without prejudice” designation and rejected the defendants’ argument that such wording removed the offer from Rule 49.

In assessing quantum, the court applied the principles under s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01, emphasizing reasonableness rather than strict adherence to actual legal fees.

The court fixed costs at a lump sum reflecting partial and substantial indemnity principles and adjustments for conduct that lengthened the proceedings.

The City of Windsor appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision awarding compensation to landowners for expropriated property.

The City argued the Board erred by ignoring the land's natural features and provincial policy statements when determining market value, and by improperly assessing injurious affection and interest.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusions on the scope of the expropriation scheme, the highest and best use of the land, and the appropriate comparators were reasonable and supported by the evidence.