COURT FILE NO.: 469/05

DATE: 20060320

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

DIVISIONAL COURT

mÉTIVIER R.S.J., GRAVELY AND EPSTEIN JJ.

B E T W E E N:

INVESTEX HOLDINGS LTD.

Applicant

• and -

THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL

Respondent

Kenneth C. Vaughan, for the Applicant

Sean L. Gosnell and David M. Klacko, for the Respondent

HEARD at Toronto: March 20, 2006

epstein J.: (Orally)

1The applicant, Investex Holdings Ltd. seeks judicial review of the report of an inquiry officer appointed under the Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1990 c.E.26 and of the resolution of the respondent, the Regional Municipality of Peel, passed on October 27, 2005, authorizing the expropriation.

2The taking involves the southerly 15 feet of two parcels of land owned by Investex. Peel requires the land for a temporary and a permanent easement to accommodate sewage flows from approved and future development in the area. Following a class environmental assessment study, a hearing of necessity took place before the inquiry officer in order to determine whether the proposed expropriation was "fair, sound and reasonably necessary" under the Act.

3The inquiry officer heard from three witnesses called by Peel. Investex chose to call no evidence. In his detailed report, the inquiry officer reviewed the evidence pertaining to the eight possible solutions to the problem and expressed the opinion that "in the circumstances of the present case, there was a reasonable consideration of alternatives" and that the "proposed expropriation is fair, sound and reasonably necessary in the achievement of the objectives of the expropriating authority".

4In his submissions, counsel on behalf of Investex focused on the issue of the examination of what was fair, sound and reasonably necessary in the context of the existence of other options, some of which did not require an expropriation.

5Neither party raised the issue of this Court's jurisdiction. However, based on Karn v. Ontario Hydro (1977), 11 L.C.R. 1, Marisa Construction v. Toronto (City) (1998), 65 L.C.R. 81 (Ont. Div. Ct.) and Bezik Construction Ltd. v. Ontario (Minister of Transportation) [2006] O.J. No. 542 (Ont. Div. Ct.), it is clear that the Court has accepted a supervisory role in the conduct of hearings of necessity.

6We are of the view that this application must fail. There has been no denial of natural justice in the full hearing the inquiry officer conducted. There is no error of law that went to the inquiry officer's jurisdiction.

7The challenge to Peel's resolution was based on the alleged errors in the inquiry officer's report. It follows that there are no grounds established for setting aside this resolution.

8The application is therefore dismissed.

MÉTIVIER R.S.J.

9Costs are fixed in the amount of $12,000.00, all inclusive.

MÉTIVIER R.S.J.

GRAVELY J.

EPSTEIN J.

Date of Reasons for Judgment: March 20, 2006

Date of Release: March 23, 2006

COURT FILE NO.: 469/05

DATE: 20060320

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

DIVISIONAL COURT

mÉTIVIER R.S.J., GRAVELY AND