Kristina Bezprozvannykh

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 sought approval to expropriate surface and subsurface portions of land owned by 690981 Ontario Limited (Crossways) to construct an underground pedestrian tunnel connecting the GO/UP station and the Dundas West TTC station.

Crossways requested a Hearing of Necessity, raising concerns about safety, fire protection, and the scope of the temporary easement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal found that the proposed expropriations were fair, sound, and reasonably necessary to meet the growing demands for public transit.

The Tribunal approved the expropriations, including the temporary access easement, subject to Metrolinx coordinating all works with Crossways and adhering to its safety commitments.

The parties submitted a draft Procedural Order to the Ontario Land Tribunal regarding a claim for compensation under the Expropriations Act arising from the expropriation of lands by Metrolinx.

The Tribunal issued the Procedural Order, scheduling an eight-day video hearing to commence on February 22, 2027, and setting out the procedural timetable for documentary discovery, mediation, and the exchange of expert reports.

The parties submitted a draft Procedural Order on consent to govern the conduct of the proceeding regarding a claim for disturbance damages under the Expropriations Act.

The Tribunal issued the Procedural Order, scheduling the hearing for April 12, 2027, and setting out the procedural timetable for pleadings, discovery, mediation, and evidence exchange.

The matter involves a claim for compensation under the Expropriations Act arising from Metrolinx's expropriation of a property in Toronto.

During status teleconferences, it was noted that the Claimant failed to deliver witness statements in accordance with a prior Procedural Order.

Metrolinx requested $2,500 in costs due to this non-compliance.

The Tribunal deferred the costs request to be considered after the hearing or upon settlement, and issued a revised Procedural Order setting new hearing dates for April 2026.

The applicant appealed the City of Markham's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications to permit a high-rise mixed-use development.

Following revisions to the proposal, the parties reached a settlement for a development featuring two towers (49 and 46 storeys) on a shared podium, containing 873 purpose-built rental units.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested planning evidence that the revised proposal aligns with the emerging vision for transit-oriented development along the Yonge Corridor and represents good land use planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The claimant brought a motion to compel the respondent to produce a detailed Schedule 'B' to its Affidavit of Documents and sought costs.

After the respondent provided the requested schedule, the claimant withdrew the substantive request but maintained its claim for costs.

The Tribunal declined to exercise its discretion to award costs at this early stage, noting that costs in expropriation matters are better considered after a full hearing or settlement when the full sequence of events is available.

The Tribunal deferred the costs determination to the conclusion of the proceeding.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the proceedings for a determination of compensation under the Expropriations Act.

The hearing is scheduled to commence on January 26, 2026, for a period of eight days.

The order sets out the schedule for documentary discovery, examinations for discovery, expert meetings, and the exchange of witness statements.

The Claimant sought compensation for the expropriation of its property by Metrolinx for the Ontario Line transit project.

The Tribunal determined the highest and best use of the property was a high-density two-tower mixed-use development.

The Tribunal screened out the impact of the Ontario Line announcement under section 14(4)(b) of the Expropriations Act.

It rejected Metrolinx's argument for a lease encumbrance deduction due to the common control of the tenant and claimant.

The Tribunal accepted the Claimant's appraiser's market value of $187 per square foot, resulting in a gross value of $88,825,000, and applied a $1,000,000 deduction for environmental remediation costs, awarding a net amount of $87,825,000.

Metrolinx brought a motion seeking compliance with undertakings and answers to questions refused or taken under advisement during the examination for discovery of the Claimant's representative.

The Claimant argued that answering the questions would violate the principle of proportionality under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Tribunal found that the Claimant provided no evidence of the burden or costs to support its proportionality argument.

The Tribunal ordered the Claimant to answer the majority of the disputed questions, while finding it was not required to answer a select few.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding a claim for compensation under the Expropriations Act following a partial expropriation by the respondent.

The Tribunal scheduled a ten-day hearing to commence in February 2026 and issued a Procedural Order to govern the pre-hearing steps, including discovery, mediation, and the exchange of expert reports.

The plaintiff sought to enforce a settlement agreement reached at a pretrial conference, moving for judgment under Rule 49.09(a).

The court granted leave to bring the motion and found that a valid settlement agreement had been reached.

However, the court exercised its discretion under Rule 49.09(a) to refuse enforcement of the settlement, finding that it would lead to a clear injustice due to the recent discovery of serious structural deficiencies in the defendants' home, which were unknown at the time of the purported settlement.

This endorsement concerns a motion by Acerus Pharmaceuticals Corporation and its subsidiaries (the Applicants) under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) for approval of a Subscription Agreement, a reverse vesting order (ARVO), releases for various parties, a sealing order, and an extension of the stay of proceedings.

The proposed transaction involves First Generation Capital (FGC), the majority shareholder and secured creditor, acquiring the Applicants' business via a credit bid and share transaction, with excluded assets and liabilities vested out to Residual Cos.

The court analyzed the necessity and fairness of the ARVO structure, the sales process, the benefit to creditors compared to bankruptcy, and the appropriateness of the releases, ultimately granting all requested relief.

The Landlord, Daniels CCW Corporation, brought a motion for summary judgment against the Tenant, Larisa Shevchuk, and the Indemnifier, Emmanuel Paul, in a commercial lease dispute.

The Landlord sought damages for lost rents and pre-judgment interest after the Tenant defaulted on rent payments and the lease was terminated.

The Defendants admitted liability for arrears but disputed the claim for lost future rent, arguing failure to mitigate and improper damage calculation.

The court found the evidentiary record sufficient for summary judgment, rejecting the Defendants' arguments regarding mitigation and damage calculation, particularly given the re-letting of the premises.

The Landlord was granted judgment for $184,359.62.

The third party, Onward, moved to permanently stay the main action based on a release containing a no-claims-over clause that the plaintiff had signed in its favour.

The defendant, Enercare, had commenced a third-party claim against Onward for contribution and indemnity.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff had expressly waived its right to recover any damages attributable to Onward's fault in its amended statement of claim.

Applying the principle from Taylor v. Canada, the court held that this waiver eliminated any viable claim-over by Enercare against Onward, meaning the main action was not a prohibited proceeding under the release.

Following a trial where the plaintiff was awarded specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale, the plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis relying on a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The court found that the offer lacked a genuine element of compromise, as it essentially demanded the defendants either purchase the property or pay equivalent damages.

The court awarded costs to the plaintiff on a partial indemnity scale, fixed at $150,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes, after deducting costs for an earlier consent motion and an unsuccessful summary judgment motion.

The plaintiff corporation entered into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale to buy a residential property from the defendants.

The defendants subsequently refused to close the transaction, breaching the agreement.

The plaintiff sued for specific performance, arguing the property was uniquely suited as a recreational compound for its principals' extended family.

The defendants argued the purchase was a commercial investment and damages were the appropriate remedy.

The court found the property had a peculiar and special value to the plaintiff and ordered specific performance.

The plaintiff vendor brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant purchaser for breaching an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a residential property.

The defendant failed to close the transaction after the real estate market declined and she was unable to secure sufficient financing.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, rejecting the defendant's argument that the plaintiff's agent misrepresented the property's value.

Summary judgment was granted, the $60,000 deposit was forfeited, and the plaintiff was awarded $98,936.56 in damages for loss of bargain and carrying costs.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an appeal from a summary judgment that set aside two transactions by a bankrupt: the transfer of his 50% interest in his residence to his wife as an undervalue transfer and fraudulent conveyance, and the transfer of shares in a corporation to a non-arms length creditor as an improper preference.

The appellants argued the claims were time-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, and constituted an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's findings, confirming that the limitation period for the Trustee's claims began upon the Trustee's appointment and that the amended statement of claim did not introduce a new cause of action.

The court also rejected the abuse of process argument as speculative.

A cross-appeal on costs by the Trustee, seeking substantial indemnity, was also dismissed, with the court deferring to the motion judge's assessment of partial indemnity costs.