Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: October 15, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000959
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 26(2)(b) of the Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.26
Claimant: Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2291
Respondent: Metrolinx
Description: Determination of compensation
Reference Number: Plan of Expropriation AT5197132
Property Address: 6-16 Foundry Avenue
Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000959
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000959
OLT Case Name: Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2291 v. Metrolinx
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 9(1) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 4, Sched. 6
Request by: Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2291
Request for: Request for Directions
Heard: October 10, 2025 in writing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2291 (“Condo 2291”) | Andrew Valela |
| Metrolinx | Kristina Bezprozvannykh |
DECISION DELIVERED OF WILLIAM R. MIDDLETON AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1This Decision arises from a motion brought by Condo 2291 dated August 22, 2025 seeking an Order compelling Metrolinx to produce a detailed and particularized Schedule “B” to its Affidavit of Documents (“Motion”) and also seeking an Order for the costs of the Motion.
2The materials delivered for the Motion were:
(a) Motion record of Condo 2291, dated August 22, 2025, comprising 286 pages;
(b) Responding letter of Metrolinx, dated August 29, 2025, comprising 11 pages; and
(c) Reply letter of Condo 2291, dated September 4, 2025, comprising four pages, and attaching time listing, also comprising four pages.
3Approximately one week following service of the Motion, the August 29, 2025 responding letter of Metrolinx delivered the particularized Schedule “B” sought by Condo 2291 described in paragraph [1] above. In light of this, Condo 2291, in its September 4th reply letter, withdrew that request.
4Nonetheless, Condo 2291 did not withdraw its request for the costs of the Motion and the majority of its eight-page September 4th letter sought to justify that continued request.
5There is no doubt that claimants under section 32 of the Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.26 (“Act”) are often entitled to what is generally understood to be recovery of reasonable costs on a scale closer to a ‘full indemnity’ standard for the reasons expressed in the jurisprudence referred to by Condo 2291 in its correspondence. However, in this Tribunal’s view, the provisions of section 32 of the Act are best applied in the context of a completed hearing under the Act and/or a motion proceeding brought either subsequent to such a hearing or arising from a settlement reached by the Parties – pursuant to Rule 26.19 through to Rule 26.26, as applicable, of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”).
6Under section 32 of the Act and pursuant to Rule 26 of the Rules, the Tribunal has some discretion concerning the awarding of costs in expropriation matters and the circumstances that it should consider. Again, in this Tribunal’s view, that discretion is better considered either after a full hearing has been conducted or subsequent to a resolution that the Parties have reached through mediation or otherwise.
7This is so because then the full sequence of events and relevant circumstances that occurred during the proceeding are available for the Tribunal’s consideration. In addition, it has been the Tribunal’s experience that often the Parties are able to resolve all matters concerning costs without needing to seek further adjudication from the Tribunal. Indeed, the Tribunal strongly encourages the Parties do so wherever possible so as to minimize the expenditure of time and expense by the Tribunal and because it is generally more desirable that the Parties fashion their own complete settlements of expropriation proceedings.
8Moreover, it is the Tribunal’s view that dealing with the incremental costs of multiple steps in an expropriation proceeding is very costly, time-consuming, and may unfortunately serve to foster ongoing ‘litigation conflict’ between the Parties – and potentially, a multiplicity of proceedings such as the request for costs here – and may then therefore not serve to create the best opportunity for a fair, just, expeditious, and cost-effective resolution of the merits of the proceedings pursuant to Rule 1.3 of the Rules.
9In light of the above, the Tribunal declines to exercise its discretion at this early stage of this proceeding to consider the entitlement of Condo 2291 to the reasonable costs of its Motion. This does not preclude Condo 2291 from seeking an award of costs on a future date, as contemplated in the Order set out below.
ORDER
THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:
1 The costs related to the above-described Motion shall be determined by the Tribunal at, or subsequent to, the final hearing of this proceeding, or in the alternative, upon the final settlement of the proceeding, pursuant to a request brought in accordance with Rule 26 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure; and
2 This Vice-Chair shall remain seized of all matters relating to and arising from this Order and the ongoing case management of this proceeding, including all motion practice, but shall not be seized in respect of the mediation or hearing of this proceeding.
“William R. Middleton”
WILLIAM R. MIDDLETON
VICE-CHAIR
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: www.olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248
The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.