Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: October 29, 2025
CASE NO.: OLT-23-001216
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 26(1) of the Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.26, as amended
Claimant: Pietrangelo Family Lise Anita Pietrangelo Danecker, Danielle Pietrangelo, Victor Pietrangelo, Gina Louise Pietrangelo Marotta, Dean Micheal Pietrangelo and Victor Daniel Pietrangelo
Respondent: Regional Municipality of Niagara
Description: Determination of compensation
Property Address: South side of Lyons Creek Road and the east side of Montrose Road, in the City of Niagara Falls
Municipality/UT: City of Niagara Falls
OLT Case No.: OLT-23-001216
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-001216
OLT Case Name: Pietrangelo Family Vs. The Regional Municipality of Niagara
Heard: In Writing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Pietrangelo Family as described above (“Claimants”) | J. Patrick Maloney |
| Regional Municipality of Niagara (“Niagara”) | G. Lavictoire |
DECISION OF WILLIAM R. MIDDLETON AND FINAL ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1This Decision deals with two motions now pending before the Tribunal. The underlying proceeding concerns the expropriation by Niagara of a property owned by the Claimants located at the South side of Lyons Creek Road and the east side of Montrose Road, in the City of Niagara Falls (“Property”). The Claimants have brought a claim for the market value of the Property as compensation under the Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.26, as amended (“Act”).
2The circumstances of the two motions are unusual: the first motion (“Motion”) was brought by Niagara on August 1, 2025, and sought production of a real estate appraisal concerning the Property (“Appraisal”) that was pleaded in the Notice of Arbitration and Statement of Claim of the Claimants, dated December 5, 2023 (“Claimants’ Pleading”), and for further examination for discovery based on the Appraisal The second motion was brought by the Claimants dated August 7, 2025 (“Second Motion”) seeking to, inter alia, amend the Claimants’ Pleading to remove reference to the Appraisal. In the meantime, after the Motion was filed, the Tribunal held a status teleconference on August 28, 2025, at which time directions were Ordered with respect to the filing of materials on both of the above-described motions.
3The Tribunal has decided to provide reasons for both the Motion and the Second Motion in a single Decision for the sake of simplicity and because of their interrelationship as noted above.
4The materials filed in respect of both motions were:
(a) Motion Record of Niagara, dated August 1, 2025;
(b) Motion Record of the Claimants, dated August 7, 2025;
(c) Notice of Response to Claimant’s Motion by Niagara, dated September 5, 2025;
(d) Factum of Niagara, dated September 5, 2025;
(e) Niagara Book of Authorities, dated September 5, 2025;
(f) Niagara Book of Authorities, dated September 10, 2025;
(g) Responding Motion Record of Claimants, dated September 5, 2025;
(h) Reply Record of Claimants, dated September 10, 2025; and
(i) Reply Factum of Niagara, dated September 10, 2025.
ISSUES AND DECISION
5An additional unusual aspect to the background of the Motion and the Second Motion is that examinations for discovery of the Claimants have already taken place on May 5, 2025, at which time counsel for Niagara sought to ask questions of the Claimants concerning the Appraisal. Those questions were refused in part, and counsel for the Claimants also refused to produce the Appraisal despite the fact that its particulars and conclusions had been specifically relied on by the Claimants in paragraphs 24 to 27 inclusive of the Claimants’ Pleading delivered almost 1.5 years earlier (as acknowledged in the Claimants’ Motion materials). Despite the governing Procedural Order in this proceeding, issued February 12, 2025, requiring delivery by the Parties of their respective Affidavits of Documents, the Claimants also did not list the Appraisal in their Schedule A thereto or provide it to Niagara. Instead, at the discoveries, counsel for the Claimants proffered a new draft appraisal report and refused to list the Appraisal in Schedule A to its Affidavit of Documents.
6Niagara’s counsel objects to what appears to be an attempt by the Claimants to ‘hide’ an unfavourable Appraisal and to instead ‘substitute’ in its pleading references to a different, newer and higher value appraisal report. The Claimant’s counsel alleges that the Appraisal was only pleaded because of a rush to get his client’s claim filed due to limitation period concerns. However, as pointed out by counsel for Niagara, there is no limitation period applicable to the Claimant’s action that necessitated any urgency. The Claimants claim for the market value of the Property, not for injurious affection – and only the latter type of claims are subject to any limitation under the Act.
7The Claimants’ counsel also contends that since Niagara was given a copy of the Appraisal pursuant to without prejudice settlement discussions and that it is somehow now impermissible for Niagara to seek its production via the Motion. The Tribunal disagrees since the Claimants – for whatever reason – freely chose to plead the salient details of the Appraisal and thus expose it to the normal discovery process and production. Having taken that step, the Claimants cannot retroactively ‘inoculate’ the Appraisal from production or remove it from its pleading simply because subsequent settlement discussions may have occurred during which it was provided to Niagara.
8The unfairness created here is that Niagara has already partially conducted discovery based on the Claimants’ Pleading and is entitled to production of the Appraisal since it was referred to in that pleading. However, this is easily addressed by this Tribunal: the production of the Appraisal will be Ordered and the amendment of the Statement of Claim will be granted on terms that will not ‘disappear’ reference to the Appraisal and that will also permit the Claimants to plead reliance on one or more additional real estate appraisals as they see fit.
9There is no basis in fact or law to reach any other determination and counsel for the Claimant has not submitted any jurisprudence directly on point with the above-noted circumstances to support its position. As noted in paragraph [7] above, the issue of ‘settlement privilege’ argued here does not operate to permit the Claimants to remove its reliance on the Appraisal that it voluntarily chose to include by extensive reference in the Claimants’ Pleading.
10The Tribunal has broad powers under the Ontario Land Tribunal Act S.O. 2021, c. 4, Sched. 6 (“OLTA”), subsection 12(2) and under section 1.3 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to adopt practices and procedures aimed at promoting the fairest, just, cost-effective and expeditious determinations of the merits of a proceeding. This is a guiding principle which governs the Tribunal as mandated in OLTA. The Tribunal is not strictly bound to generally apply the provisions of the Rules of Civil Procedure in all matters. In any event, the Tribunal agrees that to remove reference to the Appraisal in the Claimants’ pleadings and to insulate it from discovery would be prejudicial to Niagara and therefore, even if Rule 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure was applied here, the specific amendment sought by the Claimants would cause non-compensable prejudice to Niagara. Moreover, Niagara is entitled to reasonable examination for discovery on the Appraisal because it is clearly relevant to the Claimants’ Pleading.
11The continued reference in the Claimants’ Pleading to the Appraisal, and its production, is not harmful to the Claimants’ case in any event. A new and different expert report may provide useful and convincing evidence and the fact that the earlier Appraisal may have reached a different lower value conclusion does not bind the Tribunal at the final hearing. Full and fair direct examination and, cross-examination will occur in a procedurally fair fashion at the hearing.
12The Tribunal sees no issue associated with the amendment of the Statement of Claim to permit reference to a new real estate appraisal and, indeed, the Claimant’s counsel does not object. The particulars of the existing Appraisal as currently set out in the Claimants’ Pleading should not be excised from the amended pleading although the Claimants shall not be prevented from outlining their reliance on one or more additional real estate appraisal reports.
ORDER
13THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:
(a) The Claimants shall produce to Niagara the appraisal report described in paragraphs 24 to 27 inclusive of the current Notice of Arbitration and Statement of Claim dated December 5, 2023 (“Current Appraisal”) and shall provide an updated Affidavit of Documents that lists the Current Appraisal in Schedule A thereto;
(b) The Claimants may amend the current Notice of Arbitration and Statement of Claim dated December 5, 2023, to include reference to an additional appraisal report(s) but such amendments shall not delete reference to the particulars of the Current Appraisal now contained in paragraphs 24 to 27 inclusive of the current Notice of Arbitration and Statement of Claim dated December 5, 2023;
(c) Niagara shall be permitted to conduct reasonable examinations for discovery concerning the Current Appraisal by way of further oral examination for discovery not to exceed four hours or by written questions at the option of Niagara;
(d) There shall be no current Order as to the costs of either the motion dated August 7, 2025, of Niagara or the motion dated September 5, 2025, of the Claimants and these costs shall be deferred for the consideration of the Tribunal following the hearing of this proceeding or upon application for costs adjudication under Rule 26.19 subsequent to a final settlement of all claims for damages and compensation in the event that the Parties are unable to agree on the quantum of costs payable in this proceeding;
(e) This Vice Chair shall remain seized of all matters arising from this Decision and the Orders made above, and for ongoing case management purposes, but shall not be seized for any mediation that may be convened or the final 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.