Jessica Karban

The parties submitted a draft Procedural Order to the Ontario Land Tribunal regarding a claim for compensation under the Expropriations Act.

The Tribunal issued the Procedural Order on consent, setting the timetable for pre-hearing steps, including documentary discovery, mediation, and the exchange of expert reports, and scheduling a five-day video hearing to commence on May 31, 2027.

The property owners requested a Hearing of Necessity under the Expropriations Act regarding Metrolinx's application to expropriate a temporary easement over a portion of their driveway.

The easement was required to regrade and repave the driveway to tie into a newly constructed sidewalk for the Hazel McCallion LRT project.

The owners argued the expropriation was unnecessary and overly broad.

The Tribunal found that the regrading was required to achieve proper stormwater drainage and access, which could not be accomplished solely through work on the public right-of-way.

The Tribunal concluded the proposed expropriation was fair, sound, and reasonably necessary, but recommended including a fixed two-year expiry date to provide certainty to the owners.

Metrolinx brought a motion to compel the claimant to deliver an affidavit of documents, schedule examinations for discovery, and cancel the upcoming hearing dates in an expropriation compensation proceeding.

The claimant agreed to the documentary and discovery relief but opposed vacating the hearing dates.

The Tribunal ordered the claimant to deliver the affidavit of documents and attend discovery on specified dates, and vacated the scheduled hearing dates, allowing the parties to seek new dates upon the claimant's compliance.

The Respondent, Metrolinx, brought a motion to compel the Claimants to answer undertakings and questions refused during an examination for discovery in an expropriation compensation proceeding.

The Claimants sought over $59 million in compensation but failed to provide particulars for their business loss and disturbance damage claims.

The Tribunal found the Claimants' refusals to answer questions regarding the highest and best use of the property and their allegations of bad faith to be unreasonable.

The motion was granted, and the Claimants were ordered to provide fulsome answers and pay $7,500 in costs to the Respondent.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a teleconference to establish a procedural order for a land compensation arbitration under the Expropriations Act.

The Tribunal ordered the claimants to produce financial statements and tax returns, and issued a procedural order governing the steps leading up to a 14-day hearing scheduled to commence in July 2025.

The Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent to govern the proceedings in a land compensation claim under the Expropriations Act.

The claim relates to the expropriation of property by Metrolinx for the construction of the Scarborough Subway Extension.

The order sets out the schedule for documentary discovery, examinations for discovery, expert meetings, and the exchange of witness statements leading up to a 10-day video hearing scheduled to commence on April 28, 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit a 50-storey mixed-use building in Toronto.

The parties requested a third CMC on consent to allow Metrolinx, which recently received expropriation approval for the subject lands, time to serve a 90 days' notice to expropriate.

The Tribunal scheduled a third CMC for February 21, 2025, and ordered the parties to provide a Draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference regarding four applications for compensation under the Expropriations Act arising from the expropriation of a multi-unit property for the Ontario Line Subway Project.

The Tribunal ordered that the applications be heard together and issued a procedural order scheduling a 15-day video hearing on the merits for September 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicants against the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan applications for a 50-storey residential building.

The parties advised that a settlement had been reached between the applicants and the City, though Metrolinx remained a party due to imminent expropriation of the subject lands.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day contested settlement hearing and approved the Procedural Order to guide the proceedings.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding three claims for compensation under the Expropriations Act arising from the expropriation of a property for the Ontario Line Subway project.

The claimants requested that a fourth related claim be heard together with these three.

The Tribunal scheduled a 15-day joint hearing for September 2025 and adjourned the CMC to allow the fourth claimant to file their Notice of Arbitration and Statement of Claim.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Nipigon Investments Inc. and Nipigon Property Limited against the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on Official Plan, Zoning By-law, and Site Plan applications for a 50-storey residential building.

The parties advised that a settlement had been reached between the applicants and the City, though Metrolinx was not a party to the settlement.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day contested settlement hearing and approved the final Procedural Order to guide the future proceedings.

The appellants appealed the City of Toronto's refusal of Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit a 50-storey mixed-use building.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to Metrolinx, which is expropriating the subject lands for a subway extension.

The Tribunal deferred a request to consolidate the appeals with a related site-specific appeal and scheduled a second Case Management Conference.

Following a decision awarding the claimant $571,891 for injurious affection due to business losses from an expropriation, the parties made written submissions on statutory interest.

The respondent argued that business losses are disturbance damages and do not attract interest under section 33(1) of the Expropriations Act.

The Tribunal rejected this argument, finding that business losses resulting from the construction or use of the works constitute injurious affection under section 1(1)(a)(ii) and therefore attract statutory interest.

The Tribunal ordered interest to be calculated from the beginning of each loss period, totaling $190,170.52 to April 19, 2024, with a per diem thereafter.

The claimant sought compensation under the Expropriations Act for the expropriation of a portion of its commercial plaza property by Metrolinx for a grade separation project.

The Tribunal determined that the highest and best use of the property was a standalone mixed-use residential redevelopment, rejecting Metrolinx's argument that an assemblage of adjoining properties was required.

The Tribunal awarded $4,570,000 for the market value of the fee simple taking, declining to apply the 'before and after' valuation method under section 14(3) of the Act.

The Tribunal also awarded $50,000 for a temporary easement and $1,321,061 for injurious affection caused by the grade separation and loss of access.

Interest was awarded at 6% from the date Metrolinx acquired legal possession.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding a claim for compensation under the Expropriations Act for the expropriation of lands in Toronto.

The parties agreed on a four-day hearing and submitted a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and scheduled the hearing for April 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding claims for compensation under the Expropriations Act brought by a franchisee and franchisor against Metrolinx.

The claims arose from the expropriation of a property for the Scarborough Subway Extension.

On consent, the Tribunal ordered the consolidation of the two claims and issued a Procedural Order to govern the pre-hearing steps and the scheduling of a five-day video hearing on the merits.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding a claim for compensation under the Expropriations Act arising from the expropriation of a commercial property for the construction of the Ontario Line Subway.

The Tribunal reviewed and approved a draft Procedural Order, set a three-day hearing date for March 2025, and established timelines for pre-hearing steps including discovery, mediation, and the exchange of expert reports.

The claimants brought a motion for an order compelling the respondent to answer questions refused or taken under advisement during an examination for discovery.

The underlying claim involves compensation for the expropriation of a temporary easement.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to answer questions relating to property access and the section 25 appraisal, as they relate to disturbance damages and market value.

Questions regarding project design and agreements were deemed premature or irrelevant because construction had been delayed.

The claimant brought a claim for compensation under the Expropriations Act relating to the expropriation of a portion of its lands by Metrolinx.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties agreed to participate in Tribunal-led mediation and requested hearing dates in 2025 in case mediation is unsuccessful.

The Tribunal scheduled a 10-day video hearing commencing in June 2025 and approved the parties' consent Procedural Order.

At a pre-hearing conference for a compensation claim under the Expropriations Act, the parties advised the Tribunal that they had narrowed the issues and reduced the required hearing time to three and one-half days.

The parties also requested a schedule adjustment to accommodate the Passover holiday.

The Tribunal granted the requests and issued a revised procedural order.