John S. Doherty

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference to schedule a hearing for compensation arising from the expropriation of land by the Region of Waterloo.

The parties indicated they expect to call 14 witnesses.

The Tribunal scheduled a 14-day hearing commencing in November 2023 and directed the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The appellant appealed the refusal of a minor variance application and the failure to act on site plan applications by the Town of Grimsby.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties advised that an Interim Control By-law affecting the subject property had been extended, and the Town was considering a secondary plan and zoning by-law amendment.

Due to the pending planning instruments, the Tribunal agreed it was premature to schedule a hearing on the merits and instead scheduled a further Case Management Conference for May 27, 2022.

The appellant's land was expropriated by the respondent municipality.

After years of delay and litigation, the appellant rejected a settlement offer of $1.2 million.

The Ontario Municipal Board ultimately awarded compensation of $710,000 and ordered costs against the appellant from the date of the settlement offer.

The appellant appealed, arguing that 'amount offered' under s. 32 of the Expropriations Act refers only to the initial statutory offer under s. 25, and that costs cannot be awarded against an expropriated party.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 32 encompasses subsequent offers and that the Board retains discretion to award costs against a claimant to encourage settlement and sanction unreasonable conduct.

The applicant's motion to amend its notice of application was previously dismissed.

The respondents sought costs of $12,979.13 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The applicant argued for no costs or deferred costs, citing divided success, novel questions of law, and its impecuniosity due to expropriation.

The court rejected the applicant's arguments, finding the respondents were entirely successful and the applicant's conduct in bringing a duplicative and unnecessary motion warranted rebuke.

The court awarded the respondents costs fixed at $12,000 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The applicant sought leave to amend its notice of application to add the interim Chief Building Official as a respondent and to appeal his alleged 'decision' that the applicant was not an 'aggrieved person' regarding a prior Unsafe Order.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the proposed amendments were not legally tenable.

The court held that the interim official's communication was not an appealable 'decision' under section 25(1) of the Building Code Act, as standing is a determination for the court, not the official.

The appellant appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision regarding interest and costs awarded following the expropriation of its lands by the respondent City.

The Board had calculated statutory interest based on the appellant's net interest in the lands after deducting an outstanding mortgage, and awarded costs against the appellant from the date of a Rule 49 settlement offer that exceeded the final compensation award.

The Divisional Court found the Board's interpretation of the Expropriations Act regarding both the interest calculation and the costs award to be reasonable, dismissing the appeal.

The appellant corporation appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision granting partial summary judgment to the respondent City in an expropriation compensation claim.

The Board had dismissed claims for damages pre-dating the announcement of the expropriation scheme, claims related to 1996 agreements, and claims of interference by statutory officials.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was reasonableness and that the Board had the jurisdiction to apply the Rules of Civil Procedure, including granting partial summary judgment and weighing evidence.

Finding the Board's decisions reasonable, the court dismissed the appeal.

The applicants, most of whom are Raeliens, alleged discrimination on the basis of creed after the respondent pub refused to allow them to host a 'mini-lecture' and asked them to leave.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had legitimate business reasons for refusing to host the widely-publicized event, as it had not consented to the publicity and was concerned about disruption.

However, the Tribunal found that the General Manager's comment that the pub did not want to be associated with their 'cult' constituted discrimination on the basis of creed.

The respondent was ordered to pay $100 to each applicant for injury to dignity and to require its managerial staff to complete human rights training.

The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the City of Toronto appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision awarding the respondents $1,859,999 for injurious affection to their remaining lands following an expropriation.

The appellants argued that a previously granted parkland dedication credit settled the claim, should be set off against the damages, or that the Board erred in calculating the lost development units.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable.

The court held that the parkland credit related to the expropriated land, while the injurious affection claim related to the loss of opportunity to build townhouses on the remaining land, meaning there was no double recovery.

Following an appeal regarding compensation for expropriated properties, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The court found that success was equally divided between the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and the claimants, resulting in no costs awarded for that portion of the appeal.

However, the City of Toronto was substantially successful on the most time-consuming and financially significant issues against the claimants.

The court awarded the City costs fixed at $120,000.

The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the City of Toronto appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision awarding compensation to the respondents for the expropriation of their waterfront properties.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's assessment of market value, injurious affection, and loss of riparian rights, finding the Board's conclusions reasonable and supported by expert evidence.

However, the Court allowed the appeals regarding disturbance damages, setting aside a $4,000,000 award for delay and a $1,850,000 award for loss of a parkland dedication credit.

The Court found that the respondents, who were not active developers, did not suffer a compensable business disturbance from the delay, and that the parkland credit award constituted double recovery and was speculative.

The appellants brought a motion for leave to file facta in excess of the 30-page limit prescribed by the Practice Direction under Rule 61, seeking a maximum of 160 pages each, and for an order fixing the assigned times for oral submissions.

The court found that while some latitude was required, the case essentially involved a battle of experts on damages with no liability issues.

The court granted leave to file facta up to 55 pages.

The request to set time limits for oral argument was dismissed as premature.

The appellants appealed an order of the Divisional Court that set aside an award of disturbance damages made by the Ontario Municipal Board in respect of land expropriated by the Ministry of Transportation.

The Divisional Court had concluded that an intention to sell the land was essential to awarding disturbance damages for delay.

The Court of Appeal found that the Divisional Court misapprehended the Board's reasoning, holding that the Board was entitled in law to award disturbance damages for the 38-month freeze period prior to expropriation, as the delay imposed an unreasonable disturbance.

The appeal was allowed and the Board's award of $71,959.00 for disturbance damages was restored.

The appellant school board expropriated a portion of the respondents' land for a school site.

The respondents sought compensation for the market value of the land and for lost developer's profit as disturbance damages.

The Ontario Municipal Board awarded market value but denied the claim for lost developer's profit.

The Divisional Court reversed, awarding the lost profit as disturbance damages.

The Court of Appeal allowed the school board's appeal, holding that lost prospective developer's profit is not compensable as disturbance damages under the Expropriations Act, and restored the OMB's award.

The appellant land developers appealed a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board refusing to award disturbance damages for lost developer's profit following the expropriation of a parcel of land by the respondent school board.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, applying the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Dell Holdings to find that disturbance damages are not limited to the expropriated lands and can include the natural and reasonable consequences of the expropriation, such as lost profit on a subdivision development that was virtually complete.

The court awarded the agreed quantum of $437,000 in disturbance damages and dismissed the respondent's cross-appeal.