Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: July 11, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000924
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 26(2)(b) of the Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.26.
Claimant: Hossein Mostafavi
Respondent: City of Toronto
Subject: Land Compensation
Reference Number: Plan No. AT6113468
Property Address: 37 Norton Avenue
Municipality/Upper Tier: Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000924
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000924
OLT Case Name: Mostafavi v. Toronto (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 9(1) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 4, Sched. 6
Request by: City of Toronto
Request for: Directions
Heard: In Writing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Hossein Mostafavi (“Claimant”)
Emilio Bisceglia,
Hana Tariq
City of Toronto (“City”)
Mark Piel,
Ariel Lo-Wong
DECISION DELIVERED BY WILLIAM R. MIDDLETON ON JULY 10, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1This decision arises from a motion brought by the City (“Motion”) for Orders stemming from the alleged failure of the Claimant to properly answer undertakings given, and to answer questions improperly refused to be answered at the examination for discovery of the Claimant held on February 12, 2025 (“Discoveries”).
2The Tribunal has received the following materials from the Parties: Motion Record of the City dated May 9, 2025; Responding Motion Record of Claimant dated June 6, 2025; and Reply to Response to Motion of the City dated June 17, 2025.
3The underlying action arises from a claim for compensation arising from the City’s expropriation of the property municipally known as 37 Norton Avenue, in the City, made pursuant to the provisions of the Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.26 (“Act”). Claims brought before this Tribunal under the Act are governed by Rule 26 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, and motions, such as this one, are also subject to certain provisions of the Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure.
ISSUES/ANALYSIS
4The two basic issues on motions, such as these, are straightforward: Are the questions asked relevant to any issues raised by the pleadings? If so, are there any other legal reasons dictating that the questions asked should not be answered fully or the documents related to such answers not produced?
5In the Responding Motion Record, the Claimant offers no meaningful response to the Motion other than to attach a few additional documents and to state, “at this time, I cannot locate further documents”. The Claimant does not otherwise contest the requested relief.
6This response by the Claimant also ignores his obligation to provide relevant information and documentation in support of the claims he has pursued in this litigation.
Claims for Injurious Affection and Business / Income Loss
7After review of the Motion materials, it is clear that the Claimant has improperly refused to answer certain relevant questions posed at the Discoveries. If the Claimant intends to pursue recovery of an alleged loss of rental income as claimed in paragraphs 13 to 15 inclusive of the Statement of Claim, then he must answer the following questions and provide all relevant documentation in his possession or within his control to request: Questions 173, 178, 181, 213, 218, 219 and 220. Given that the hearing of this proceeding is fast approaching on October 5, 2025, and that expert reports are due on July 25, it is not a proper response for the Claimant to attempt to answer by simply stating: “the Claimant has no further particulars at this time. If the Claimant locates same, he will advise”. Alternatively, the Claimant may abandon this claim.
8It appears from the Motion materials that the Claimant has still not yet properly demonstrated the basis for his alleged injurious affection claim. If he intends to pursue that claim, then he must properly answer the following questions and fully detail the basis for such claim and must provide all relevant documentation in his possession or within his control: Questions 204, 207. Alternatively, the Claimant may abandon this claim.
9In these circumstances, the City is also entitled to compel the Claimant to reattend for further examination for discovery on the questions and any documentation produced as described in paragraphs [7] and [8] above.
ORDER
10THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:
(a) The Claimant shall within 20 days of the issuance of this Decision answer the following questions asked at his examination for discovery held on February 12, 2025, and provide all relevant documentation in his possession or within his control to request: Questions 173, 178, 181, 213, 218, 219 and 220;
(b) The Claimant shall, within 20 days of the issuance of this Decision deliver full particulars and all relevant documentation in his possession or within his control to request pertaining to his claims for injurious affection made in this proceeding;
(c) At the sole option of the City, on reasonable notice, the City may require the Claimant to attend within 40 days of the issuance of this Decision for further examination for discovery for a period not to exceed four (4) hours on the matters described in paragraph [10] (a) and (b) above; and
(d) This Vice Chair shall remain seized of all matters relating to the ongoing case management of this proceeding, including any motion practice, but shall not be seized in respect of the hearing of this proceeding or any mediation that may be convened.
“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.