L. Cummings

The expropriating authority sought to expropriate temporary and permanent easements over the owners' properties to facilitate a road widening and bus rapid transit project.

The owners requested a Hearing of Necessity under the Expropriations Act.

The Tribunal found that the proposed permanent easement for a hydro pole and the temporary easements for construction access and grading were fair, sound, and reasonably necessary to achieve the expropriating authority's objectives.

The Tribunal recommended that the temporary easements include a fixed expiry date and specific details regarding permitted uses to provide certainty to the owners.

The Tribunal also recommended that the expropriating authority pay $200 in costs to each of the participating owners.

The claimants sought compensation under the Expropriations Act for injurious affection allegedly caused by the respondent municipality during sewer repairs.

Following mediation, the parties reached a settlement in principle regarding compensation, leaving only the issue of costs to be determined.

At a Case Management Conference, the Tribunal established deadlines for the execution of the Minutes of Settlement and for the exchange of positions and supporting documentation regarding costs.

Metrolinx brought a motion to compel the Claimant to fulfill undertakings and answer refusals from an examination for discovery in an expropriation proceeding.

The Tribunal found the undertakings issue moot as they had been satisfied.

Regarding the refusals, the Tribunal ordered the Claimant to produce specific employment contracts, T4s, and invoices related to the expropriation and relocation, finding them relevant to the pleadings.

The remaining refusals were dismissed as irrelevant, and no costs were awarded.

The claimant brought a motion seeking answers to undertakings and questions refused by the respondent during examinations for discovery in an expropriation proceeding.

The Ontario Land Tribunal applied the Rules of Civil Procedure regarding relevancy and proportionality to assess the disputed questions.

The Tribunal found that questions relating to the 'Issue of Frontage', 'Issue of Dedication', and 'Compatibility Issue' were relevant to the pleadings, while questions regarding 'Differential Treatment' and prior negotiations were not.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to answer specific relevant questions and directed the parties to amend the procedural order.

The claimants brought a motion for a comprehensive confidentiality order to protect their financial and business data in an expropriation proceeding for injurious affection and business losses arising from subway construction.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding the proposed order overly broad, premature, and contrary to the open hearing principle.

The Tribunal noted that the claimants had not yet produced any documents and that the requested order would impose significant burdens on the parties and the Tribunal.

The claimants were granted leave to bring future motions for confidentiality regarding specific documents or hearing attendance at the appropriate time.

Metrolinx brought a motion for summary judgment or to strike portions of Don Valley's claim, arguing the claims related to a commercial lease dispute outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction under the Expropriations Act.

Don Valley brought a cross-motion to strike portions of Metrolinx's reply for failing to comply with pleading rules.

The Tribunal dismissed both motions, finding that the jurisdictional issues involved significant factual disputes unsuitable for summary judgment, and declining to strictly apply the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike pleadings in this context.

The Tribunal urged both parties to amend their pleadings to remove unnecessary evidence and argument.

Metrolinx brought a motion to dismiss the claimant's land compensation claim due to a failure to produce tangible evidence in support of damages, or alternatively, for an order compelling a further and better Affidavit of Documents.

The claimant, a registered charity whose leased premises were expropriated, agreed to a deadline for document production and did not oppose adjourning the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the claim, noting that the claimant had submitted some documents and that the veracity of the claim should be determined on its merits.

The Tribunal vacated the upcoming hearing dates, scheduled a Case Management Conference, and deferred the issue of costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of a municipality's decision to invoice him $9,445.44 for fire department response costs after he started an open-air fire on his property.

The applicant had previously pleaded guilty to a provincial offence for violating the burning by-law and was fined $250.

He argued the invoice decision lacked procedural fairness and was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the informal process provided was procedurally fair given the emergency context and statutory scheme, and that the decision to issue the invoice was reasonable and transparent.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding a land compensation claim under the Expropriation Act.

The Tribunal directed amendments to the draft Procedural Order, including requirements for a draft hearing plan and a Joint Document Book.

The Tribunal also scheduled a motion date for April 28, 2023, and a five-day hearing on the merits commencing June 12, 2023.

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.

Metrolinx brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claimant's claim for $830,000 in expropriation compensation, arguing the claimant was merely a bare licensee under temporary occupancy licenses and not an 'owner' under the Expropriations Act.

The claimant brought a cross-motion for summary judgment in its favour.

The Tribunal found that the claimant's continuous occupation of the premises, payment of nominal rent, and provision of promotional benefits to the landlord raised a genuine issue for trial regarding whether the claimant was a tenant under an oral or implied tenancy.

The Tribunal dismissed both Metrolinx's motion for summary judgment and the claimant's cross-motion, directing the matter to proceed to a full hearing on the merits.

In an expropriation proceeding, the Claimant sought disturbance damages including $1,015,000 for additional mortgage interest costs allegedly caused by delay.

The Region brought a motion for production of financial statements, bank records, and corporate records from the Claimant and two third-party mortgagees, arguing the mortgages were non-arm's length transactions involving the Claimant's director.

The Tribunal allowed the motion in part, ordering production of the requested financial and corporate records, finding them relevant to proving whether funds were actually disbursed and necessary to avoid prejudice to the Region.