Robert Lawson

A Case Management Conference was held to establish a procedural order and schedule hearing dates for a claim for compensation under the Expropriations Act.

The Tribunal scheduled a 10-day video hearing to commence on November 30, 2026, and issued a Procedural Order governing the pre-hearing steps, including documentary discovery, witness statements, and expert reports.

The claimant brought a claim for compensation arising from the expropriation of a portion of its lands by the Ministry of Transportation.

Following a status hearing, the Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent, scheduling a seven-day hearing on the merits to commence in November 2025 and setting out the procedural deadlines for the proceeding.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a status hearing regarding a claim for compensation arising from the expropriation of a portion of lands by the Ministry of Transportation.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to serve and file its Reply by April 22, 2025, and directed the parties to file a draft Procedural Order prior to a second status hearing scheduled for May 6, 2025.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference to establish a Procedural Order and schedule a hearing on the merits for a compensation claim under the Expropriations Act.

The claim arose from the expropriation of a portion of the claimants' agricultural property for the construction of Highway 404.

The Tribunal issued the Procedural Order on consent and scheduled a five-day video hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding a land compensation claim under the Expropriations Act.

The parties consented to a revised hearing date of October 28, 2024, and submitted a proposed revised Procedural Order.

The Tribunal ordered that the appended Procedural Order govern the conduct of the proceeding.

The Claimants brought a motion for a declaration that an offer of compensation made by the Ministry of Transportation under section 25(1)(a) of the Expropriations Act in 2011 became a binding contract when accepted by the Claimants in 2021, despite the Ministry's attempt to withdraw and substitute the offer in 2013.

The Tribunal found that the Expropriations Act does not permit an expropriating authority to withdraw or rescind a section 25(1)(a) offer.

Furthermore, the Ministry's substituted offer was invalid as it was not accompanied by an appraisal report as required by section 25(2).

The Tribunal ordered that the original offer remained in effect, was validly accepted, and directed the Ministry to pay the net offer amount plus interest and costs.

The claimant sought compensation under the Expropriations Act arising from the expropriation of portions of its property by the Ministry of Transportation.

The parties previously advised the Tribunal that a settlement in principle had been reached, leading to the cancellation of the scheduled hearing.

At a subsequent Case Management Conference, the parties confirmed that Minutes of Settlement were drafted but not yet signed.

The Tribunal declined the claimant's request to schedule a further Case Management Conference in two weeks, finding it an unproductive use of resources.

The Tribunal directed the parties to advise when binding Minutes of Settlement are executed, holding the file in abeyance until then or until a status report is provided by September 1, 2022.

A status hearing was held regarding a claim for land compensation following an expropriation by the Ministry of Transportation.

The parties advised that draft Minutes of Settlement were under review by the Ministry.

The Tribunal directed the Ministry to advise as soon as possible whether the settlement was executed, and ordered that the scheduled hearing dates would remain on a peremptory basis if the settlement was not finalized.

The applicant, Sunrise North Senior Living Ltd., brought an urgent application for judicial review seeking an order of mandamus to compel the Sheriff of the Regional Municipality of York to evict a respondent, Rohan Salmon, pursuant to Landlord and Tenant Board eviction orders.

The urgency was predicated on the Sheriff's position that the eviction order would expire on June 1, 2019, a point disputed by Sunrise.

The court, without deciding the expiry issue, renewed the eviction orders for one year to eliminate urgency and transferred the judicial review application to the Divisional Court for a full hearing.

The applicant brought a motion seeking a finding of contempt against the respondent for allegedly breaching a consent access order relating to the parties’ children.

Although affidavit evidence conflicted on most alleged breaches, the court found that the respondent had withheld access for approximately two weeks and that her justification for doing so lacked credibility.

Despite concluding that the elements of civil contempt could have been established beyond a reasonable doubt for that incident, the court declined to make a formal contempt finding.

Emphasizing that contempt in family law matters is a remedy of last resort, the court determined that the circumstances did not warrant such a sanction at that time.

The motion was dismissed, though the respondent’s conduct would be considered on the issue of costs.

The parties separated after a 22-year common law relationship.

The applicant husband and respondent wife had extensively integrated their finances, pooling incomes and sharing expenses.

The court found the parties were engaged in a joint family venture and that the husband was unjustly enriched by retaining a disproportionate share of assets, including RRSPs, a life insurance policy, and Aeroplan miles.

The court ordered an equal division of joint assets, an RRSP rollover to equalize retirement savings, a declaration of trust for half the life insurance policy, and lump sum spousal support for the wife.

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.

The mother appealed a trial judgment ordering shared parenting (joint custody) and equal access time.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, granting the mother sole custody because the parents had a complete communication breakdown and could not cooperate, making joint custody inappropriate.

However, the court upheld the equal access time and child support orders, finding that equal time with both parents remained in the children's best interests.

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.