Frank Joseph Sperduti

The proposed intervenors, three regional municipalities, brought a motion for leave to intervene as friends of the court in an appeal regarding compensation under the Expropriations Act.

The underlying appeal involved a private dispute between an expropriating authority and a landowner over the market value of expropriated land.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed intervenors failed to demonstrate they would make a useful and distinct contribution not already offered by the appellant.

The court noted that the intervention would unnecessarily broaden and complicate the private dispute by introducing issues related to the capital planning of other municipalities.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Land Planning Appeal Tribunal fixing compensation for expropriated land.

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred in refusing an adjournment, determining the highest and best use of the land, and demonstrating a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Tribunal's factual findings that the appellant failed to establish a legal non-conforming commercial or industrial use.

The court also held the Tribunal's refusal of an adjournment and its procedural rulings to manage the appellant's disruptive behaviour were reasonable and did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

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 court issued an addendum to its Reasons for Judgment, which previously found certain Option Agreement provisions unconscionable and granted relief from penalty and forfeiture under section 98 of the Courts of Justice Act to the applicants.

This addendum sets the specific terms for that equitable relief, including timelines for construction commencement contingent on the respondent withdrawing an objection and the final disposition of any appeal.

The court also addressed costs, finding the applicants entirely successful and awarding them partial indemnity costs of $111,349.43, rejecting the respondents' arguments for divided success or reduced costs.

The applicants sought a declaration that repurchase and daily penalty provisions in an Option Agreement were unenforceable and relief from forfeiture under section 98 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The respondents brought a cross-application to enforce the agreement.

The court found the provisions unconscionable due to gross disproportionality between the forfeiture/penalty and actual damages, coupled with unfair conduct by the respondents, unequal bargaining power, and inherently unreasonable terms.

The court also determined that the respondent Michael's agent implicitly waived Michael's right to rely on the construction deadline through his conduct.

Consequently, the applicants' request for relief from forfeiture was granted, and the respondents' cross-application to enforce the Option Agreement was dismissed.

The court imposed new, equitable terms for future construction and a revised repurchase price if subsequent defaults occur.

This appeal concerned an option agreement granting a right of first refusal for land.

The appellant, 864773 Ontario Inc., purported to exercise its option to purchase the property for $10 million, arguing it was a "like amount" to a third-party offer of $15.3 million, considering alleged development costs.

The application judge found the offer invalid.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal, affirming that the $10 million offer was not a "like amount" to the $15.3 million offer, particularly in the absence of expert evidence to support the claimed adjustments for development costs.

The court also allowed the respondents' cross-appeal to vary the judgment language to facilitate the sale to the third party.

The appellant's property was damaged by flooding following significant rainfalls in May 2013.

The floodwaters originated from adjacent land expropriated by the respondent municipality in 2009 for a construction project.

The appellant had commenced an injurious affection claim before the Ontario Municipal Board in 2011.

Following the flooding, the appellant commenced an action in Superior Court in June 2015.

The respondent moved for summary judgment on the basis that the action was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The motion judge found the claim was discoverable when the flooding occurred in May 2013.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred by failing to consider whether an action in Superior Court would be an appropriate means to seek a remedy, and by misapprehending the evidence regarding the appellant's belief that the OMB had exclusive jurisdiction over injurious affection claims.

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 appellant sought costs as the successful party on appeal, while the respondents sought costs relying on s. 32(1) of the Expropriations Act.

The Court of Appeal held that s. 32(1) applies to the Ontario Municipal Board, not the court, and is triggered only when the Board has made an order awarding at least 85% of the offered amount.

Since the Board's order was set aside, s. 32(1) did not apply at this stage.

The appellant was awarded partial indemnity costs of $108,000 for the Divisional Court appeal and $45,000 for the Court of Appeal proceedings.

However, the court directed that the costs are not payable until the matter is finally resolved by the Board.

The City of Windsor appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) award for the expropriation of the respondents' lands.

The OMB had determined the market value of the expropriated lands and awarded injurious affection damages for the remaining lands based on an expropriation scheme dating back to 1983.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the OMB unreasonably failed to consider the negative impact of the 1996 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) on the lands' market value, as the PPS was not part of the expropriation scheme.

Furthermore, the OMB erred in law by assessing injurious affection damages based on the entire expropriation scheme rather than limiting them to the diminution in value caused specifically by the City's acquisition of the lands.

A new hearing was ordered.

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.