StorageVault Canada Inc. v. Metrolinx, 2025 CanLII 21784

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: March 14, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000267

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 26(1) of the Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.26, as amended

Claimant: StorageVault Canada Inc.

Respondent: Metrolinx

Description: Determination of compensation

Property Address: 356 Eastern Avenue

Municipality: City of Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000267

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000267

OLT Case Name: StorageVault Canada Inc. v. Metrolinx

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 9(1) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 4, Sched. 6

Request by: Metrolinx

Request for: Request for Directions

Heard: January 31, 2025 by Writing; further information received from the Parties on March 11, March 12 and March 13, 2025

APPEARANCES (in writing only):

Parties

Counsel

StorageVault Canada Inc. (“Claimant”)

Sean Foran Abbey Sinclair Katherine Chan

Metrolinx

Christel Higgs Ian Mathany Kristina Bezprozvannykh Alyssa Granato

DECISION DELIVERED BY WILLIAM R. MIDDLETON AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This Decision arises from a motion brought by Metrolinx dated January 17, 2025, seeking compliance with undertakings, questions taken under advisement and questions refused at the examination for discovery of the Claimant’s representative Iqbal Khan held on September 26, 2024 (“Motion”). The background of this matter was described in a previous Decision issued June 7, 2024 and will not be reiterated here. This matter is scheduled for a hearing commencing on October 15, 2025.

2The materials delivered in connection with the Motion were:

(a) Motion Record of Metrolinx dated January 17, 2025, comprising 913 pages;

(b) Responding Motion Record of the Claimant, dated January 24, 2025, comprising 733 pages;

(d) Correspondence from counsel for Metrolinx to the Tribunal dated March 11, 2025; and

(e) Correspondence from counsel for each Party responding to the Tribunal’s further enquiries dated March 11, 12 and 13, 2025.

BRIEF ANALYSIS OF ISSUES RELATING TO THE MOTION

3The disputes between the Parties on this Motion commonly arise during and after examinations for discovery – which are part of every expropriation case but are rare in other proceedings brought before the Tribunal.

4Undertakings given by a Party at examinations for discovery are to be honoured – although often the Parties disagree as to the ‘adequacy’ of compliance. This is also the case on this Motion.

5Questions taken under advisement and questions refused at discovery are ultimately treated as refusals. The usual point of contention is whether the questions are reasonably related to and relevant to the issues raised in the underlying pleadings in the action or are somehow too burdensome in nature.

6Often, the Party defending a motion like the current Motion will argue that to be compelled to answer a question violates the principle of proportionality set out in Rule 29.2.03 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure – this is partly the position taken by the Claimant in its responding materials here. However, under the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Tribunal it is not bound to follow the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure except in very limited circumstances. Even where it does have reference to those civil litigation rules, the Tribunal’s mandate and discretion under Rules 1.4 and 1.6 prevail, which are aimed at promoting a fair, just, expeditious and cost-effective resolution of the merits of the proceedings.

7In the Tribunal’s view, an allegation on ‘proportionality’ as referenced in paragraph [6] requires some evidence as to the lack thereof – or put another way, of the burden and/or costs entailed with answering the question or request for documents. However, despite the Claimant’s argument in its response to the Motion, no such evidence was provided. Thus, the Tribunal is left with an unhelpful bare allegation which it is unable to adjudicate. Therefore, the Tribunal declines to make any finding as to whether any of the questions posed at discovery that are the subject matter of this Motion violate the principle of proportionality.

FINDINGS

8After careful review of the materials filed by both Parties on the Motion; of the transcript of the examination for discovery of the Claimant’s representative; and of the issues raised in the pleadings of the Parties in this proceeding, the Tribunal has reached the following conclusions:

(a) Questions no. 220 / Undertaking # 7; Question no. 260 / Undertaking #11; Question no. 371-72 / Undertaking #12; question taken under advisement (“U/A”) #26; U/A #39; U/A # 34; U/A # 41; U/A #48 must be answered by the Claimant;

(b) Question refusals at Q. 356, Qs. 309-13 must be answered by the Claimant; and

9The Orders set out below flow from the findings made in paragraph [8] above.

ORDER

10THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

(a) The Claimant shall within 30 days of the date of issuance of this Decision provide a response to the questions noted above in paragraph [8] (a) and (b), including any documentation reasonably relevant thereto, that is satisfactory to Metrolinx, acting reasonably;

(b) If the Claimant fails to comply with the Order made at paragraph [10] (a), Metrolinx shall be entitled to within 60 days of the date of issuance of this Decision continue its examination for discovery of Iqbal Khan, the Claimant’s representative, for a period not to exceed 4 hours;

(c) No costs shall be awarded to either Party in respect of this Motion or in respect of the continued examination for discovery described in paragraph [10] (b) above; and

(d) This Vice Chair shall remain seized of all matters related to this Decision and any other case management issues or other motion practice that may arise in this proceeding prior to the final hearing but shall not be seized in respect of any mediation that may be convened or of the final hearing scheduled to commence on October 15, 2025.

“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.