Mark A. Wiffen

The appellants appealed a motion judge's refusal to stay an Ontario action in favour of arbitration and forum selection clauses contained in an Additional Rights Agreement.

The dispute arose over the termination of the respondents' management rights following the sale of certain theatre assets.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, applying the competence-competence principle.

The Court held that where it is arguable that a dispute falls within the terms of an arbitration agreement, the court should grant a stay and leave the determination of the arbitrator's jurisdiction to the arbitrator.

The action was stayed pending the resolution of the arbitration proceedings in California.

The appellant moved to extend the time to perfect its appeal.

The court found that while there was substantial delay, it was attributable to the appellant's previous solicitor and not the appellant itself, who maintained a bona fide intention to proceed.

The respondent did not allege specific prejudice.

The motion was granted, extending the time to perfect the appeal, with costs of the motion awarded to the respondent.

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.