Frank Joseph Sperduti

A first Case Management Conference was held regarding a Hearing of Necessity under the Expropriations Act concerning the structural safety of access routes during construction at 2662 Bloor Street West.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day hearing on the merits and ordered the expropriating authority to produce all documents 30 days prior to the hearing.

The claimant sought $5.6 million in compensation under the Expropriations Act for the market value of lands to be transferred to the City for a stormwater management pond pursuant to a subdivision agreement.

The City brought a motion to dismiss the claim for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that no formal expropriation had occurred to trigger section 26 of the Act, and the parties had not explicitly consented to arbitration under section 30.

The claim was dismissed, with directives provided for the claimant to potentially amend its pleadings or pursue alternative remedies.

At a second Case Management Conference regarding a hearing of necessity for an expropriation by the City of Toronto, the claimant requested further disclosure of documents.

The Tribunal initially adjourned the CMC pending a formal motion for production, but rescinded the adjournment upon the City's objection.

The Tribunal found that the City had essentially met the disclosure requirements under subsection 7(4) of the Expropriations Act, noting that the subway station design was only 30% complete and many requested documents did not yet exist.

The Tribunal scheduled the hearing of necessity for July 2023.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a typographical error in its previous decision dated February 13, 2023.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Tribunal corrected the day of the week for a scheduled Case Management Conference from Wednesday, March 9, 2023, to Thursday, March 9, 2023.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding a Hearing of Necessity requested by the claimant under the Expropriations Act.

The dispute involves the City of Toronto's intent to expropriate interests for the Bloor-Yonge subway station expansion, specifically concerning the relocation of a chiller.

The Tribunal established a procedural timetable for the exchange of the Notice of Grounds and responses, and scheduled a further Case Management Conference.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference to update the timetable for an expropriation compensation claim.

The parties agreed to a new timetable, which was filed with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal ordered that all outstanding undertakings be fulfilled by January 31, 2023, and approved the agreed-upon timetable.

A status hearing and case management conference was held regarding an expropriation claim by a tenant.

The respondent Region indicated its intent to bring a motion to consolidate this proceeding with a separate claim by the landlord of the subject property.

The Tribunal scheduled the motion to consolidate and deferred further case management and the issuance of a procedural order until the motion is determined.

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.

At a second Case Management Conference regarding a land compensation claim under the Expropriations Act, the parties presented differing versions of a draft Procedural Order.

The Claimant sought to postpone setting dates for witness lists, mediation, and expert meetings until after a third CMC, while the Region requested a fixed hearing date and schedule.

Noting that the expropriation occurred in 2018 and the matter had languished, the Tribunal set a 10-day hearing for December 2023 and directed the finalization of the Procedural Order with an extended schedule to accommodate the Claimant.

The claimants brought a motion regarding delayed responses to undertakings from the discovery of the City's appraiser in an expropriation compensation matter.

As previous timeframes could no longer be met, the parties sought a new hearing date to allow for appropriate exchange dates and potential mediation.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference, set new dates for the exchange of appraisal reports, and rescheduled the 15-day hearing for May and June 2023.

A Case Management Conference was held to determine the process for resolving a dispute over the valuation of lands to be conveyed to the City for stormwater management, which is a condition for a draft Plan of Subdivision.

The Tribunal directed that the valuation dispute be addressed through the Tribunal's Arbitration process, initiated by the applicant's Notice of Arbitration, while the subdivision file remains open until conditions are fulfilled.

At a Case Management Conference regarding a land compensation dispute under the Expropriations Act, the respondent municipality sought an order compelling the claimant to serve a Statement of Claim.

The claimant argued the request was premature pending a development application.

The Tribunal found that under Rule 26.9, once a Notice of Arbitration is served, the claimant must serve a Statement of Claim.

The Tribunal ordered the claimant to serve its Statement of Claim by a specified date to prevent further delay and prejudice regarding interest payments.

The claimants sought compensation for the partial taking of their apple orchard lands by the Regional Municipality of Halton for road widening purposes.

The parties indicated a desire to participate in Tribunal-assisted mediation following document production.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day video hearing to commence in November 2022 and issued a procedural order governing the steps leading up to the hearing, including discoveries, mediation, and the exchange of witness statements.

The Regional Municipality of York expropriated lands from the claimants in 2009.

The claim experienced significant delays, partly due to the claimants' health issues and inability to navigate virtual proceedings during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Region raised concerns about the slow pace and the continuing accrual of 6% interest on its unaccepted section 25 offer.

The Tribunal ordered that interest on the section 25 offer stop accruing as of the hearing date and established a procedural order with peremptory dates to move the matter to a ten-day hearing.

The parties settled a land compensation claim under the Expropriations Act, leaving only the assessment of the claimant's costs outstanding.

The claimant requested a Case Management Conference to schedule a hearing on costs.

The Tribunal confirmed its jurisdiction to fix costs under s. 32 of the Act and directed the parties to prepare a draft Procedural Order and attend a further Case Management Conference to set hearing dates.

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.