Murray Stieber

Two related actions challenged a municipality’s expropriation of commercial land that formed part of a 1,000‑acre assembly for a vehicle manufacturing plant.

The plaintiffs argued that the municipality unlawfully expropriated the property and conferred an illegal “bonus” on a private manufacturer by transferring the land at the expropriation price rather than its alleged fair market value, contrary to s. 106 of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The court held that the municipality had lawful authority to expropriate the land for valid public purposes related to economic development.

Applying the contextual approach to s. 106 adopted in Friends of Lansdowne Inc. v. Ottawa (City), the court concluded that the transaction did not confer an “obviously undue advantage” on the private enterprise.

Accordingly, the expropriation and subsequent transfer did not breach the statutory prohibition on municipal bonuses.

The applicant sought judicial review of the respondent City's decision to award a water meter supply and installation contract to a competing bidder.

The applicant argued the City breached procedural fairness by using undisclosed evaluation criteria, specifically a technical ratio and a 5-year evaluation period.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Request for Proposals granted the City broad discretion and explicitly stated selection would be based on merit and price ratio.

The court also excluded the applicant's proffered expert evidence on procurement fairness, finding it unnecessary to assist the court.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his defamation action.

The action arose from a statement of defence in a wrongful dismissal suit alleging the appellant installed undisclosed surveillance cameras in employee living accommodations.

The motion judge found the respondents established the substantial truth of the allegations, noting the appellant failed to file responding affidavit material as required by Rule 20.02(2).

The Court of Appeal found sufficient evidence supported the motion judge's conclusion and dismissed the appeal.

Following a successful appeal, the appellants and respondents agreed that the court's previous statement regarding costs at first instance was erroneous.

The court received written submissions on the proper disposition of costs at first instance.

Given that the appeal reversed the partial summary judgment granted to the respondents, both parties were entirely unsuccessful at first instance.

The court set aside the costs order below and remitted the costs of the motions at first instance to the trial judge, who would be in the best position to assess their relative importance in light of the trial result.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision granting partial summary judgment to the respondent municipalities.

The motion judge had dismissed the appellants' claim that the expropriation of their mall lands for a new Toyota plant was illegal per se.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that genuine issues for trial existed regarding whether the expropriation price was below fair market value (constituting an illegal bonus under the Municipal Act), whether the expropriation conformed to the official plan under the Planning Act, and whether the municipality acted in bad faith.

The individual appellant appealed an order striking her claim and denying her leave to represent the corporate appellant under Rule 15.01.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motions judge correctly concluded the individual appellant lacked legal capacity to sue, as the cause of action belonged to the corporation.

The Court further held it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal regarding the Rule 15.01 order, as it was interlocutory and appealable only to the Divisional Court with leave.