Michael Grant

The proposed intervenors, three regional municipalities, brought a motion for leave to intervene as friends of the court in an appeal regarding compensation under the Expropriations Act.

The underlying appeal involved a private dispute between an expropriating authority and a landowner over the market value of expropriated land.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed intervenors failed to demonstrate they would make a useful and distinct contribution not already offered by the appellant.

The court noted that the intervention would unnecessarily broaden and complicate the private dispute by introducing issues related to the capital planning of other municipalities.

Following a compensation proceeding under the Expropriations Act, the claimant sought an order for costs of over $1.1 million.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the costs assessment pending its appeal of the underlying merit decision to the Divisional Court.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that the assessment of costs is not automatically stayed and that proceeding expeditiously was fair and efficient.

The Tribunal reviewed the contested items in the bill of costs, making minor deductions for unrelated utility negotiations and previously settled discovery motions, but largely upheld the claimant's costs as reasonable and reasonably incurred.

The Tribunal awarded $1,067,308 for the interim bill of costs and $64,359 for costs incurred on the application itself, with interest running from the date of the merit decision.

The Claimant sought compensation for the expropriation of a portion of its vacant property by the Regional Municipality of York for a bus rapid transit system.

The central issue was determining the highest and best use of the property before expropriation.

The Claimant argued for a 12-storey mixed-use development, while the Region argued for a low-rise commercial development, asserting that the Claimant's concept was not legally permissible due to required land dedications and policies influenced by the expropriation scheme.

The Tribunal rejected the Region's arguments, finding that the Claimant's pre-expropriation concept was legally permissible, physically possible, financially feasible, and maximally profitable.

The Tribunal awarded $857,493 for the fee simple taking, $1,502,067 for injurious affection to the remainder of the property, and $12,348 for a temporary easement.

The claimant in an expropriation compensation proceeding brought an unopposed motion for a confidentiality order under Rule 22.2 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Rules.

The claimant sought to protect its own sensitive financial and business information, as well as proprietary market data obtained from a non-party data provider, Kalibrate Canada Inc. The Tribunal found that the information involved intimate financial matters whose protection outweighed the public interest in open proceedings.

The motion was granted and the confidentiality order issued.

The Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent to govern the proceedings in a land compensation claim under the Expropriations Act.

The claim relates to the expropriation of property by Metrolinx for the construction of the Scarborough Subway Extension.

The order sets out the schedule for documentary discovery, examinations for discovery, expert meetings, and the exchange of witness statements leading up to a 10-day video hearing scheduled to commence on April 28, 2025.

The appellant appealed the City of Markham's calculation of development charges for 20 disputed units in a residential development, arguing they should be classified as 'Large Apartment' rather than 'Multiple Dwelling Unit'.

The appellant contended that the units' size and servicing needs were akin to apartments and that the charges exceeded the capital costs arising from the increase in need for services.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the built form of the units, which lacked a shared corridor and had separate entrances, caused them to function like ground-related housing.

The Tribunal concluded the units were correctly categorized as 'Multiple Dwelling Unit' under the City's by-law.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an expropriation claim by Orlando Corporation against the Regional Municipality of York.

The parties submitted a draft Procedural Order on consent.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and scheduled a four-day video hearing on the merits for February 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an order to correct a technical error in its previous decision dated September 13, 2023, pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The correction replaced Schedule 1 of the decision, which sets out the procedural order and issues list for an upcoming hearing regarding an Official Plan Amendment for a mixed-use redevelopment of the Scarborough Town Centre.

In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings leading up to and including a 10-day video hearing scheduled to commence on January 13, 2025, regarding an expropriation arbitration between 2090396 Ontario Limited and the Regional Municipality of York.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent to govern the proceedings for a compensation hearing under the Expropriations Act.

The hearing is scheduled for five days commencing April 7, 2025.

The order sets out deadlines for documentary discovery, witness statements, expert reports, and other pre-hearing requirements.

The claimant, McDonald's Restaurants of Canada Limited, brought a motion seeking a confidentiality clause in a Procedural Order to protect sensitive commercial and financial data related to its $2,000,000 business loss claim arising from an expropriation.

The claimant argued that disclosure of this information could be used by competitors to its detriment.

The respondent, York Region, opposed the motion, arguing that the requested order was overly broad, would interfere with solicitor-client communications, and was unnecessary given the deemed undertaking rule.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding the request too onerous and unsubstantiated at this preliminary stage, noting that the claimant failed to demonstrate a compelling need for the pre-emptory confidentiality order.

A case management conference was held to address procedural matters and set a hearing date for an arbitration under the Expropriations Act.

The Tribunal reviewed and approved a draft Procedural Order and Issues List submitted by the parties.

A five-day video hearing was scheduled for June 2024, and the Procedural Order was appended to govern all further pre-hearing requirements.

The claimant brought a motion for a procedural order and a confidentiality order in an expropriation compensation claim arising from a road widening.

The respondent sought an adjournment, arguing that Metrolinx, the purported ultimate beneficiary of the taking, should be given the opportunity to seek participant status.

The Tribunal expressed concern about adding participants to land compensation matters but granted an adjournment, directing the respondent to file responding materials clarifying Metrolinx's liability and setting a schedule for the continuation of the motion.

The Regional Municipality of York brought a motion to link two expropriation arbitrations and have them heard together.

The first arbitration involved the property owner's claim for market value and disturbance damages due to development delay.

The second arbitration involved a commercial parking lot tenant's claim for business losses resulting from a temporary easement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the claims involved different damages, different expert evidence, and no common issues of fact or law other than arising from the same expropriation.

The Tribunal concluded that linking the proceedings would cause prejudice, delay, and increased costs for the tenant.

A status hearing and case management conference was held regarding an expropriation claim by a tenant.

The respondent Region indicated its intent to bring a motion to consolidate this proceeding with a separate claim by the landlord of the subject property.

The Tribunal scheduled the motion to consolidate and deferred further case management and the issuance of a procedural order until the motion is determined.

The appellants (homeowners) appealed a trial decision that found them liable for breach of an oral renovation contract and dismissed their claims against the builder and the City of Hamilton.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings regarding the oral contract, the standard of construction, the interpretation of allowances, the homeowners' breach of contract, and the builder's compliance.

The appellate court deferred to the trial judge's credibility findings, particularly concerning expert evidence, and his assessment of damages, finding no palpable and overriding error.