Court File and Parties
DIVISIONAL COURT
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 31 OF THE EXPROPRIATIONS ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.26. as amended
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY (formerly The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority)
- and -
A. EDWARD GADZALA, V & E GADZALA HOLDINGS LIMITED and 412264 ONTARIO
AND BETWEEN:
CITY OF TORONTO (formerly City of Etobicoke)
- and –
A. EDWARD GADZALA, V & E GADZALA HOLDINGS LIMITED and 412264 ONTARIO LIMITED
BEFORE: Cunningham A.C.J.
COUNSEL: Paul R. Henry, for the Respondent (Appellant), Toronto and Region Conservation Authority John S. Doherty, for the Respondent (Appellant), City of Toronto Sean L. Gosnell, for the Claimants (Respondents on Appeal)
HEARD: February 14, 2005
Endorsement
1There are two issues before me on this motion. First, the appellants seek an order granting them leave to file facta in excess of the 30-page limit prescribed by the Practice Direction under Rule 61, to a maximum of 160 pages each. Second, they seek an order fixing the assigned times for oral submissions of the parties.
2As to the first issue, while I am persuaded some latitude may be required in the circumstances, I accept the respondents’ submission that essentially we have a “battle of experts” in this case. There are no liability issues, only damages, however complex. Essentially, the Board accepted the claimants’ expert evidence in making certain factual findings. Accordingly, with some co-operation and creative writing, the appellants and, indeed the respondents, should not require more than 55 pages and I so order.
3As to the request to set time limits for oral argument, this request is entirely premature. Counsel will, at an appropriate time, according to the Rules, deal with this issue. The Registrar of course may be spoken to with respect to particular time requirements.
4Order to go as per paragraph 4(1) to 4(h) inclusive of the respondents’ factum, on consent.
Cunningham A.C.J.
DATE: February 15, 2005