Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: October 23, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000726

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER the Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.26, as amended and in the matter of an Arbitration

Claimant: 2090396 Ontario Limited

Respondent: Regional Municipality of York

Description: Determination of compensation

Subject: Market Value, Disturbance Damages and/or Injurious Affection

Property Address/Description: 1500 Centre Street, Vaughan

Municipality: Regional Municipality of York

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000726

OLT File No.: OLT-23-000726

OLT Case Name: 2090396 Ontario Limited v. Regional Municipality of York

Heard: September 3, 2025, in Writing

APPEARANCES:

Parties 2090396 Ontario Limited (“Claimant”) Regional Municipality of York (“Region”)

Counsel Mark R. Flowers, Andrew Valela Michael Grant, Lou Fortini

DECISION DELIVERED BY JEAN-PIERRE BLAIS and FINAL ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

Link to the Order

1The matter before the Tribunal is an Application for Costs (“Application”) brought by the Claimant on July 25, 2025, following a compensation proceeding under the Expropriations Act, R.S.O.1990, c. E.26 (“Act”), considered in writing by the Tribunal pursuant to Rule 26.20 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”).

2The Motion for Costs follows the final determination on the compensation claim made in a Decision and Order issued on April 17, 2025 (“Merit Decision”).

3The Merit Decision notes that the Claimant had indicated that it was seeking costs pursuant to the Act. The Parties were hopeful however that they could come to an agreement with respect to the amount of the costs. Nevertheless, they requested that the Member remain seized if the Parties could not agree. This is consistent with Rule 26.26 of the Rules.

4At Paragraph 168 (d) of the Merit Decision, the Tribunal set out the process to determine the issue of costs if the Parties were unable to resolve this issue themselves. The filing dates were modified on consent of the Parties. The Region filed a Response dated August 8, 2025, and the Claimant filed a Reply dated August 18, 2025.

5At the Region’s request, it was permitted to file a Surreply based on the allegation that the Claimant’s Reply contained evidence produced and arguments advanced, for the first time, in the Claimant’s Reply. The Surreply is dated August 28, 2025. The Claimant did not seek a further Response after the Surreply.

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

6In its original Application for Costs, the Claimant seeks an Order for costs in the amount of $1,033,675.75 in respect of its legal, appraisal and other costs incurred up to and including May 31, 2025, pursuant to section 32 of the Act, as well as interest in accordance with the post-judgment interest rate prescribed by section 129 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O., c. C.43, or such higher rate as the Tribunal may deem appropriate, calculated from the date of the Merit Decision. The Claimant also seeks costs and interest for reasonable legal costs incurred beginning on June 1, 2025, in an amount to be agreed to by the Parties or determined by the Tribunal. In its Reply, the Claimant submits that consideration of the Application should not be deferred and it replaced its original Interim Bill of Costs with an Updated Bill of Costs which includes costs incurred since June 1, 2025. Thus, the total amount now claimed is $1,106,283.45.

7The Claimant argued that it is entitled to costs under section 32 of the Act, to ensure a full measure of indemnity. It submitted cases in support of its position.¹ Specifically, the Claimant argues that an award of costs is mandatory as the Tribunal awarded compensation to the Claimant (i.e., $2,371,908) that is at least 85% of the amount offered by the Region.

8Given that it has appealed the Merit Decision to the Divisional Court on May 29, 2025 (“Region’s Appeal”), the Region requests that the Tribunal adjourn the assessment of costs until after the Divisional Court renders its decision on the Region’s Appeal. In the alternative, the Region contests the amount of the claim as unreasonable in part, i.e., for any amount above $946,381.20 for the Interim Bill of Costs. The Tribunal is not aware of whether the Region has made a partial payment, and the contrary may be inferred from documents filed by the Region.²

ISSUES

9The issues in this proceeding are as follows:

a. Should the Tribunal adjourn the assessment of costs given the Region’s Appeal of the Merit Decision?

b. What amount of costs should be awarded, if any, for the Interim Bill of Costs?

c. What amount of costs should be awarded, if any, for legal costs incurred from June 1, 2025?

d. From what date should interest be calculated?

e. Should a higher post-judgment interest rate be awarded?

ANALYSIS

SHOULD THE ASSESSMENT OF COSTS BE ADJOURNED?

10The Region requests that the Tribunal adjourn the assessment of costs until after the Divisional Court has rendered its decision on the Region’s Appeal of the Merit Decision. It submits that, until the Divisional Court renders a decision, the assessment of costs is premature.

11The Region argues that the Tribunal’s Rules are silent on this issue and thus, pursuant to Rule 1.3 of the Rules, regard should be had to the Rules of Civil Procedure (“CP Rules”) to supplement the Tribunal’s Rules.³ The Region states that Rule 63.03(2) of the CP Rules provides for the automatic stay of the Merit Decision (by operation of Rule 63.01 of the CP Rules) but not to the assessment of costs. However, the Region contends that due to “an unusual fact situation,” the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to modify the applicability of Rule 63.03(2) of the CP Rules. The Region turns to the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in McGregor v. Royal Victoria Hospital of Barrie Inc. (“McGregor decision”) to support its position.⁴

12The Claimant forcefully opposes the requested adjournment. The Claimant submits that it is patently unfair to the Claimant to defer the matter of costs while the Claimant is forced to incur further costs to defend the Region’s appeal of the Merit Decision.

13The Tribunal disagrees with the position of the Region. The McGregor decision is not compelling and is distinguishable as it is a 25-year case, decided in Chambers, by a single member of the Court of Appeal, set out in a six-paragraph endorsement and not with respect to an expropriation matter. Rule 63.03(2) of the CP Rules provides that the assessment of costs is not automatically stayed. The burden of establishing exceptional circumstances would fall on the Region. Even if the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to do so (a matter that is far from clear), the Tribunal sees no reason to suspend Rule 63.03(2) of CP Rules. In addition, as pointed out by the Claimant, the McGregor decision, properly read, supports the principle that a stay of a costs assessment “by a Court” would be an exceedingly rare occurrence. Finlayson, JA, not only did not grant the requested stay of the assessment of costs in that medical malpractice case, his comments about requiring “an unusual fact situation” to justify a stay are clearly obiter dictum.

14In addition, the Tribunal considers that it might be properly inferred from Rules 63.01(5), 63.02(1)(b), 63.02(3) and 63.03(1)(a) of the CP Rules that the Region’s arguments ought to have been addressed to the Divisional Court rather than the Tribunal as it is the Divisional Court that will consider the Region’s Appeal.

15In its arguments, the Region makes numerous submissions about what the Divisional Court might decide on the Region’s Appeal. That process will follow its normal course. For the moment, the Merit Decision stands and the assessment of costs may properly go forward. The Region was given a full and fair opportunity to challenge the Claimant’s Interim and Ultimate Bill of Costs.

16Having carefully considered the position of both Parties, the Tribunal finds that assessing the costs, without postponement, is the best opportunity for a fair, just, expeditious and resolution of the issue.⁵

17Firstly, it reduces the costs for both Parties and makes for a more efficient use of the Tribunal’s resources. The Claimant has incurred costs of more than $1 million, which represents a significant financial burden, and it is entitled to a Decision on its Application expeditiously. In its alternative arguments, the Region is not challenging over $946,000 of the total amount claimed.

18Secondly, the Region’s proposal would unduly delay resolution of the costs issue, while the Claimant is required to pay its consultants and carry the costs of financing those payments.

19Thirdly, the costs proceeding is already underway. Delaying would merely result in duplication and inefficiencies, as well as further costs claims by the Claimant, which would require a response from the Region and adjudication by the Tribunal.

20Fourthly, the Divisional Court’s decision on the Region’s Appeal may not result in any finality, given the risk of further appeals by either Party or even a rehearing by the Tribunal.

21Fifthly, the case of Windsor (City) v. Paciorka Leaseholds Limited, which the Region relies upon, is not applicable as that case pertained to the entitlement to costs in the appellate proceeding and not to the costs incurred to determine compensation.⁶

22Sixthly, and most importantly, the Claimant would still be entitled to costs even if the Region’s Appeal were ultimately successful. The Ontario Court of Appeal in Shergar established that the general rule is for claimants to receive reimbursement of their reasonable costs.⁷ The Member, having presided over the Hearing on the compensation claim, sees no grounds for a reduction of the costs claimed based on purported egregious conduct nor has the Region presented any evidence of unreasonable or egregious conduct by the Claimant other than allegations with respect to the content of the Claimant’s Reply. With respect to the latter, the Tribunal finds no unreasonable or egregious conduct that would have a costs consequence.

QUANTUM FOR INTERIM BILL OF COSTS

23The Region seeks to reduce the Interim Bill of Costs by $87,294.55. It argues that the Claimant is only entitled to costs actually incurred for determining the compensation payable and that the Tribunal should reduce or disallow any items of costs if the amount was not reasonable or if it was not reasonably incurred. The Claimant asserts that the costs are reasonable and were reasonably incurred to determine the compensation.

24The Tribunal will consider each of the contested claims seriatim.

Planning Student Costs

25The Region argues that a claim of $651 for the costs of Jazlyn Kooger, a former planning student with the Claimant’s law firm, Davies Howe LLP, for attending an examination for discovery, is inappropriate. The Region claims that the individual did not assist counsel for the Claimant in preparing for discoveries, did not prepare notes of those discoveries and attended “the examination simply for her edification and not for any other purpose related to the determination of the compensation.” Counsel for the Claimant asserts that Ms. Kooger did not attend the discovery merely for educational purposes. Rather, Ms. Kooger was responsible for sharing screen documents as the discovery was conducted virtually.

26The Tribunal finds no reason to accept the Region’s assertions, and notes that the Claimant relied on an individual with the lowest billing rate.

Alectra Costs

27The Region argues that a claim of $474.60 is unrelated to the expropriation as it relates to legal fees for the negotiation of an aerial easement with a utility company (Alectra). The Claimant submits that Alectra approached the Claimant to obtain an easement to accommodate the Region’s bus rapid transit project. Although this request was later abandoned, the Claimant submits that it is entitled to reimbursement as these fees related to the negotiation of compensation. In its Surreply, the Region argues that there is no evidentiary record before the Tribunal in support of the Claimant’s position, Alectra is not related to the Region, it has its own expropriation powers, and the claim did not relate to the Region’s expropriation.

28The Tribunal agrees with the Region.

Costs Related to Motions for Discovery

29The Claimant’s Interim Bill of Costs claimed $46,000.04 in legal fees concerning two Motions related to the discovery process.

30The Claimant’s Motion was settled before the hearing, and the Parties agreed, in partial Minutes of Settlement, that the Claimant was only entitled to $7,500 for its costs on its Motion. However, it appears that the Region never paid the $7,500, which is thus still owing.

31With respect to the Region’s motion, the Claimant concedes in its Reply that it is not entitled to the costs associated with that discovery Motion because the Decision and Order of Vice Chair Middleton, dated September 26, 2024, provided that “no costs shall be awarded on this Motion”.

32Accordingly, the Tribunal reduces the costs claim by $38,500.

Articling Student Costs

33The Region seeks a reduction of 50% for 11.3 hours of legal fees incurred by Alexia Ivo, an articling student with the Claimant’s law firm, which totaled $3,164.00. The Region asserts that because the docket is partially redacted it is impossible for the Tribunal to determine whether the entirety of the fees incurred related to the determination of compensation in the expropriation proceeding. Counsel for the Claimant explains that the legal fees incurred were for legal research in relation to transportation issues. The Tribunal finds no reason to accept the Region’s assertions, and notes that the Claimant relied on an individual with the lowest billing rate.

34The Region seeks a “percentage proxy reduction” of the invoice of Bousfield Inc. (“Bousfield”), the Claimant’s land use planning consultant, because the invoice only contained a brief description of the work completed. In particular, the Region states that none of the invoices includes time dockets with respect to discrete tasks. In reply, the Claimant provides time logs from Bousfield and explains that prior to receiving the Region’s reply, the Claimant was not aware that the Region required additional details. As this was additional information, the Region had the opportunity to address this matter in its Surreply.

35Nothing that the Region raised in its Response and Surreply persuades the Tribunal that the Region’s position has merit. Indeed, the Tribunal wonders why Counsel for the Region did not request these particulars informally from Counsel for the Claimant rather than raising the argument in its formal Response. This way of proceeding was inefficient and wasteful of the Tribunal’s time. The alleged unfairness raised by Counsel for the Region was of their own making and could have easily been resolved by a communication to the Claimant’s counsel before filing their Response.

Costs of Himanshu Katyal

36The Region also takes issue with elements of Bousfield’s time log, namely a docket of $1,620 for the attendance of Himanshu Katyal at mediation. The Region submits that only the attendance of Tony Volpentesta was required. The Region also takes issue with Mr. Katyal’s docket for January 13 and 14, 2025 ($2,900) and January 15, 2025 ($1300). The Region claims that Mr. Katyal’s presence was unnecessary and unreasonable. The Tribunal disagrees with the Region. As the Region states, Mr. Volpentesta is a very senior land use planner. There is nothing unreasonable for him to be assisted in certain steps in this proceeding by Mr. Katyal. The Tribunal sees no evidence of duplication.

Appraiser Costs

37The Region urges that the Tribunal disallow amounts claimed for real estate appraisal work done by Cushman & Wakefield ULC (“Cushman”) for $12,799.76 and gsi Real Estate & Planning Advisors Inc. (“gsi”) for $12,079.32. The Region submits that it is not aware of any work product from these consultants or any evidence that their advice was relied upon in the determination of compensation in this proceeding. The Region invites the Tribunal to draw an adverse inference from the Claimant’s refusal to produce the gsi’s appraisal report.

38The Tribunal rejects the position of the Region. The Region fails to advance any authority for the proposition that, to be deemed reasonable, a consultant’s work must result in either evidence at the hearing or production of a report. Rather, as Counsel for the Claimant argues, the Taxing Officer of the Ontario Supreme Court in Martin v. Ottawa-Carleton (Regional Municipality) (No. 2), contained in the Region’s Book of Authorities, comes to the opposite conclusion.⁸ It is the expropriating authority which is statutorily obligated to produce the appraisal report upon which its section 25 offer is based. Whether or not the Claimant relied on the work of Cushman and gsi to establish its ultimate position is not relevant. Section 32 of the Act provides that the Claimant is entitled to the costs actually incurred for the purposes of determining compensation payable.

39Moreover, the Tribunal sees no evidence of “appraiser shopping.” The evidence contained in the affidavit of Jordan Fisch, dated August 17, 2025, and attached to the Claimant’s reply, explains that Cushman was retained by the Claimant on the recommendation of Larry Bedford to manage the risks associated with Mr. Bedford’s health and his potential inability to complete the work for which he was retained. After some work was done by Cushman, Mr. Bedford completed his appraisal work. Mr. Bedford’s honorarium was over $54,000, which the Region does not challenge.

Surveyor Costs

40The Region also disputes a claim of $4,682.72 in connection to an invoice issued by Kremar for the preparation of sketch/surveyor plans. The Region alleges that there is no evidence that any Kremar work product was used in determining compensation. The Tribunal agrees with the Claimant that the right-of-way width of Centre Street and Dufferin Street at the time of expropriation was key to the Claimant’s claim and the Region’s position. The Claimant was not obliged to wait for the Region to produce that information, although the Region eventually did so. The Tribunal finds the claim of $4,682.72 to be reasonable and reasonably incurred.

Conclusion on Quantum of Costs for Interim Bill of Costs

41Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the Claimant has met its burden for the items identified in the paragraphs above, except with respect to the Alectra costs and in part for the costs related to Motions for Discovery for an amount above $7,500. The claim for the Interim Bill of Costs is reduced by $38,974.60, rather than by the amount of $87,294.55, which was requested by the Region. The Tribunal finds that the amount of $1,067,308 is reasonable, was reasonably incurred and should be awarded to the Claimant.

QUANTUM FOR COSTS FROM JUNE 1, 2025

42In its original Application for Costs, the Claimant’s Interim Bill of Costs did not include additional legal costs incurred after May 31, 2025. The Claimant estimates in its Application that the additional legal costs since June 1, 2025 are approximately $36,000, exclusive of HST. It stated that the amount would be updated once the Region’s responding submission on costs had been reviewed and the Claimant had served and filed its written Reply, if any. These costs relate mostly to the costs incurred for the Application for costs.

43In its Reply, the Claimant requests that the Tribunal make a costs Order requiring the Region to pay costs set out in the Updated Bill of Costs (including costs incurred since June 1, 2025), plus applicable interest, rather than requiring the Parties to engage in further negotiations and potential submissions to the Tribunal on the costs associated with the costs proceeding itself. The additional amount claimed is $64,358.80, including HST.

44The Region submits that assessing the costs since June 1, 2025, is premature and should be deferred until after the Region’s Appeal of the Merit Decision has been resolved. The Region repeats its request made in its Response, being that the Tribunal direct the Parties to attempt to resolve the issue of costs amongst themselves, failing which the issue may be brought back before the Tribunal for final determination.

45For the reasons set out above at paragraphs 13 to 22, the Tribunal finds that it is not premature to proceed to the assessment of costs since June 1, 2025. Moreover, the Tribunal is far from persuaded that the Parties could come to a negotiated agreement, given what it has observed. A negotiated outcome on costs was envisaged in the Merit Decision and could have happened thereafter at any time, including after the Claimant filed the present Application.

46At paragraph 9 of its Surreply, the Region argues that the Tribunal’s “consistent approach” to the issue of the costs of a costs assessment “since the amendment of the Rules” on December 2, 2024, has been to defer the matter. While this may be technically correct, the Tribunal fails to understand why the date of the recent amendments to the Rules is relevant. The Region provides no explanation for the distinction. Whether or not it was by design, the result of the using the date of December 2, 2024 is to exclude a relevant Tribunal decision, namely 1353837 Ontario Incorporated v. Stratford (City) (“Stratford”), which was included in the Region’s own Book of Authorities at Tab 4.⁹ In that case, the Tribunal considered concurrently both the principal assessment of costs and the costs therefor, and ruled on them in the same Decision and Order.

47With respect to the Region’s argument concerning procedural fairness, the Tribunal notes that the Region was on notice from July 25, 2025, that the Claimant’s additional costs claim would be over $36,000, and it had the opportunity to address the full amount of the Updated Bill of Costs in its Surreply. The Region did not advance its own dockets in its Surreply, either with the consent of the Claimant or the permission of the Tribunal, to help the Tribunal address an alleged potential issue of proportionality. Moreover, the Region did not provide any authority in support of its arguments that the refusal of a settlement offer by a claimant with respect to a claim of costs was subject to the test of reasonable/unreasonable behavior, set out in the Shergar and Stratford cases, which would result in costs consequences.

48With respect to the quantum of the costs claimed in relation to the Application, the Region asserts that the amount of $64,358.80 is globally excessive, unjustified, and unreasonable. Although the Tribunal agrees that generally claiming for costs should be a relatively simple exercise, the strategy adopted by the Region made the Claimant’s legal work more onerous and complex, thereby forcing the Claimant to exert more effort and incur more costs to prepare a Reply. By way of example, the Tribunal notes that the Region: (a) sought to postpone the process set out in the Merit Decision (albeit by consent); (b) sought the scheduling of a Case Management Conference on July 11, 2025 despite Rules 10 and 26.20 of the Rules; (c) made numerous and complex arguments in its Response which required legal research and review of caselaw; and (d) challenged costs claims for amounts as little as $651 and $474.60. Although the Region is entitled to challenge any amount in the Claimant’s Bill of Costs and was indeed partially successful, challenges of de minimis amounts have costs impacts for the Claimant, and for the Region by ricochet.

49The Tribunal also notes that the Region incorrectly stated that the claim of $64,358.80 excluded HST.¹⁰ The contrary is true.

50Based on its review of the Claimant’s Updated Bill of Costs, particularly pages 153 to 161, the Tribunal finds that the amount of $64,359 is reasonable, was reasonably incurred and should be awarded to the Claimant with respect to the Application for the period after May 31, 2025.

DATE FROM WHICH INTEREST IS CALCULATED

51The Claimant submits that interest on its costs should be calculated from the date of the Merit Decision based on decisions of the Tribunal and its predecessor.¹¹ By contrast, the Region argues that the interest should be calculated from the Decision and Order on the Application. The Region argues that Kareem George Saikaley v. Ottawa (City) (“Saikaley decision”), the most recent decision cited by the Appellant, is on appeal before the Divisional Court and that, in Cynthia Lynch v. Regional Municipality of Halton, the Tribunal deferred the issue of whether any further amount ought to be awarded in respect of the costs until the disposition of the Saikaley decision by the Divisional Court.¹²

52The Tribunal finds that the interest should be calculated from the date of the Merit Decision as this is the date, in this instance, when the Claimant’s entitlement to costs crystallized. The Merit Decision created the Claimant’s entitlement to costs, leaving the determination of the exact quantum to either negotiation between the Parties or, failing this, determination by the Tribunal. In addition, the Tribunal finds that calculating interest from date of the Merit Decision is consistent with the principle of indemnification which is central to expropriation proceedings as affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada.¹³ Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that interest should be calculated, at the very least, from the date of the Merit Decision to make the Claimant economically whole.¹⁴ Although the Tribunal strives for consistency wherever possible, the Tribunal is not jurisprudentially bound by other Tribunal Decisions, particularly when those Decisions are inconsistent amongst themselves and are based on different sets of facts.

HIGHER INTEREST RATE

53Although the Claimant raises the possibility of claiming an interest rate higher than the interest rate set for post-judgment orders, which is prescribed by section 129 of the Courts of Justice Act, no detailed arguments are submitted on this point. The Claimant does submit that the prevailing post-judgment interest rate may not be sufficient to make it economically whole, particularly if the Region is able to significantly delay payment of the Claimant’s reasonable costs. This relates to a future unknown set of facts with respect to which the Claimant is currently unable to provide evidence.

54The Region did not address this specific issue in its Reply or Surreply, other than its arguments with respect to postponement of the Tribunal’s consideration of costs. The Tribunal notes however that in documents provided by the Region to the Tribunal, under Tab 7 of its Response, Counsel for the Region states that the Region is considering “the impact of Rule 63.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which stays a requirement to pay costs until the final disposition of an appeal”.

55The Tribunal sees no reason to set a higher rate at this time. However, given section Section 12(2) Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 4, the Claimant is given leave to bring forward future evidence and make further argument to seek a higher interest rate to ensure that it is made economically whole with respect to the award of costs.

ORDER

56THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

a. The Claimant’s Application for costs, for the period before June 1, 2025, made with respect to its claim for compensation under the Expropriation Act is granted in part and the Tribunal directs the Regional Municipality of York to pay 2090396 Ontario Limited a costs award in the amount of $1,067,308.

b. The Claimant’s Application for costs with respect to its Application for Costs, incurred after May 31, 2025, is granted, and the Tribunal directs the Regional Municipality of York to pay 2090396 Ontario Limited a costs award in the amount of $64,359.

c. The above costs awards are to be paid within thirty (30) days of this Order and are subject to interest in accordance with section 129 of the Courts of Justice Act, calculated from April 17, 2025.

d. The Claimant is given leave to bring forward evidence and make further argument to seek a higher post-judgement interest rate to ensure that it is made economically whole with respect to the award of costs. In that case, the Claimant shall file a Motion in writing following Rule 10.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. If one or both Parties consider that an oral hearing event is necessary, they may make that submission in their written materials. The Member remains seized with respect thereto.

Jean-Pierre Blais

JEAN-PIERRE BLAIS 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.

Footnotes

1. 1Dell Holdings Ltd. v. Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority, 1997 CanLII 400 (SCC), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 32; Smith v. Alliance Pipeline Ltd., 2011 SCC 7, [2011] 1 S.C.R. 160; Hume v. Ontario (Transportation), 2019 CanLII 117324 (ON LPAT); Marshall v. Ontario (Ministry of Transportation), [2005] O.M.B.D. No. 530; Jackson v. Metrolinx, 2024 CanLII 17004 (ON LT); Kareem George Saikaley v. Ottawa (City), 2025 CanLII 5384 (ON LT).
2. 2See Tab 7, page 129, Response of the Region.
3. 3R.R.O 1990, Reg 194.
4. 41991 CarswellOnt 406.
5. 5Section 12(2) Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 4.
6. 62012 ONCA 601, at paragraph 2.
7. 7Shergar Development Inc. v. Windsor (City), 2020 ONCA, at paragraphs 34 and 35; 1353837 Ontario Incorporated v Stratford (City), 2024 CanLII 19686 (ON LT), at paragraphs 62 and 65 to 66.
8. 81977 CarswellOnt 224, paragraphs 4 to 5.
9. 92024 CanLII 19686.
10. 10See paragraph 2, Claimant’s Reply Submissions, August 18, 2025., and page 156 of Claimant’s Bill of Costs.
11. 11Hume v. Ontario (Transportation), 2019 CanLII 117324 (ON LPAT), at paragraph 28; 12908 Hwy 7 Inc. v. HMK in Right of Ontario (Minister of Transportation), 2024 CanLII 89436 (ON LT), at paragraphs 31 and 32; Kareem George Saikaley v. Ottawa (City), 2025 CanLII 5384 (ON LT), at paragraphs 24, 31 and 43(b).
12. 122025 CanLII 59840 (ON LT), at paragraph 39.
13. 13Dell Holdings Ltd. V. Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority, 1997 CanLII 400 (SCC), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 32; Smith v. Alliance Pipeline Ltd., 2011 SCC 7, [2011] 1 S.C.R. 160.
14. 14Hume v. Ontario (Transportation), 2019 CanLII 117324 (LPAT), paragraph 28.