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)
[1] The 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.
[2] The 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.
[3] The 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".
[4] In 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.
[5] Neither 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.
[6] We 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.
[7] The 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.
[8] The application is therefore dismissed.
MÉTIVIER R.S.J.
[9] Costs 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
EPSTEIN JJ.
B E T W E E N:
INVESTEX HOLDINGS LTD.
Applicant
- and -
THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL
Respondent
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
EPSTEIN J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: March 20, 2006
Date of Release: March 23, 2006