CORRECTION NOTICE
OLT CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000848, OLT-23-000851, OLT-23-000860
DECISION ISSUE DATE(S): July 09, 2025
CORRECTION NOTICE ISSUE DATE: July 21, 2025
RE: Tagumpay Trading Company Limited v. Metrolinx, James Yi-Ming Cha v. Metrolinx, Papanagnostou v. Metrolinx
Correction to: Removal of the last sentence in paragraph [10]
Originally:
10The Claimants submit that the criteria listed in Rule 6.01 of the Rules of CP have not been met and that the balance of convenience does not favour the matters being heard at the same event. The two Claimants take this position without providing any arguments or case law to support this position.
Corrected to:
10The Claimants submit that the criteria listed in Rule 6.01 of the Rules of CP have not been met and that the balance of convenience does not favour the matters being heard at the same event.
“Matthew D.J. Bryan”
MATTHEW D.J. BRYAN
REGISTRAR
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: 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.
ISSUE DATE: July 09, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000848, OLT-23-000851, OLT-23-000860
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 26(1) of the Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.26, as amended
Claimant: Tagumpay Trading Company Limited
Respondent: Metrolinx
Description: Determination of compensation
Reference Number: Plan of Expropriation No. AT6058705
Property Address: 453 Queen Street West
Municipality: City of Toronto
OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000848
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000848
OLT Case Name: Tagumpay Trading Company Limited v. Metrolinx
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 26(1) of the Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.26, as amended
Claimant: James Yi-Ming Cha
Respondent: Metrolinx
Description: Determination of compensation
Reference Number: AT6058346
Property Address: 455 Queen Street West
Municipality: City of Toronto
OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000851
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000851
OLT Case Name: James Yi-Ming Cha v. Metrolinx
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 26(1) of the Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.26, as amended
Claimant: Argiro Papanagnostou
Respondent: Metrolinx
Description: Determination of compensation
Property Address: 449 Queen Street West
Municipality: City of Toronto
OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000860
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000860
OLT Case Name: Papanagnostou 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
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
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: May 6, 2025 in writing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Metrolinx | Christel Higgs, Alyssa Granato |
| James Yi-Ming Cha | Guillaume Lavictoire, Jason Priest |
| Tagumpay Trading Company Limited | Guillaume Lavictoire, Jason Priest |
| The Estate of Argiro Papanagnostou, The Estate of Nikolaos Papanagnostou, and Nickan Inc. | Al Burton |
DECISION DELIVERED BY G.A. CROSER ON AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1This Motion was instigated by Metrolinx with respect to three expropriations of properties along Queen Street West in the City of Toronto. The properties were acquired by Metrolinx for the purposes of the Ontario Line, a planned project to improve transit and transportation from the Ontario Science Centre to Exhibition Place. Metrolinx requests that the Tribunal make an Order pursuant to Rule 16 of the Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”) and direct the three files to be heard together, one after the other during the hearing dates scheduled for the OLT-23-000860 file. The three Claimants oppose the Motion.
EXPROPRIATION OF 449 QUEEN STREET WEST, 453 QUEEN STREET WEST, AND 455 QUEEN STREET WEST
2The three properties in question are owned by different owners (collectively the “Claimants”). The owners of 455 Queen Street West and 453 Queen Street West share the same counsel but have taken different approaches to their expropriation claims. The following graphic provides a visual representation of the locations of the properties vis- à-vis each other:
3The Tribunal file numbers, Claimants, and municipal addresses are provided in the table below for ease of reference:
| Tribunal File Number | Appeal Filed By: | Street Address |
|---|---|---|
| OLT-23-000848 | Tagumpay Trading Company Limited | 453 Queen Street West |
| OLT-23-000851 | Dr. James Yi-Ming Cha | 455 Queen Street West |
| OLT-23-000860 | Argiro Papanagnostou | 449 Queen Street West |
OLT File No. OLT-23-000848
4Pursuant to its powers under the Expropriation Act (“Act”), Metrolinx registered Expropriation Plan No. AT6058705 on title to the property known municipally as 453 Queen Street West (“453 Lands”) on April 27, 2022. Tagumpay Trading Company Limited (“848 Claimant”) was the registered owner at the time of expropriation. On August 5, 2022, Metrolinx took possession of the 453 Lands. A five-day hearing has been scheduled for this matter on November 18, 2025.
OLT File No. OLT-23-000851
5Pursuant to its powers under the Act, Metrolinx registered Expropriation Plan No. AT6058346 on title to the property known municipally as 455 Queen Street West (“455 Lands”) on April 27, 2022. Dr. James Yi-Ming Cha (“851 Claimant”) was the registered owner of the property at the time of expropriation. In and around May 2, 2022, Metrolinx took possession of the 455 Lands. No Procedural Order (“PO”) has been issued for this file.
OLT File No. OLT-23-000860
6Pursuant to its powers under the Act, Metrolinx registered Expropriation Plan No. AT6058020 on title to the property known municipally as 449 Queen Street West (“449 Lands”), at that time owned by Argiro Papanagnostou (“860 Claimant”), on April 27, 2022. On August 5, 2022, Metrolinx took possession of the 449 Lands. An eight-day hearing has been scheduled for this matter to begin on January 26, 2026.
POSITION OF METROLINX
7Metrolinx argues that the facts and issues necessary to determine the proper amount of compensation, if any, payable to the 860 Claimant for the expropriation of the 449 Lands are similar to the facts and issues relevant in determining the compensation payable, if any, to the Claimants of the 453 Lands and 455 Lands. Further, the pleadings in the 453 Lands matter incorporate the 455 Lands into the highest and best use scenario which forms the basis of 453 Lands’ claim for additional market value compensation. It is noted that the 455 Lands’ highest and best use scenario does not include a joint venture scenario with adjoining landowners. Metrolinx pleads that the position taken by the 453 Lands is inconsistent with the market value position taken by the 455 Lands, who has not explicitly pled a market value position based on a highest and best use that includes an assembly involving the 455 Lands. In addition, the highest and best use scenario utilized by the 449 Lands incorporates the 455 Lands into the highest and best scenario, which forms the basis of the 449 Land claim for additional market value compensation. Metrolinx submits that this position may be inconsistent with the market value position taken in the 455 Lands. Consequently, Metrolinx states that there is a serious risk of inconsistent findings between the three files on the face of their pleadings.
8A summary of Metrolinx’s position is as follows:
a. The files have questions of law and fact in common; b. The properties are either adjoining or separated by only one property; c. The relief claimed arises out of expropriations for the same project as of the same valuation date; d. The same witnesses will be called by Metrolinx in all three matters; e. There is a serious risk of inconsistent findings should the matters be heard separately; and f. It would be an inefficient use of Tribunal resources to adjudicate the matters separately.
POSITION OF THE 848 CLAIMANT AND 851 CLAIMANT
9The Claimants for both the 453 Lands and 455 Lands are represented by the same counsel, and the position of both Claimants is identical; the relief requested by Metrolinx is unclear and thus cannot be granted. Both Claimants note that Rule 26.3 of the Rules provides that the Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rules of CP”) apply to Tribunal proceedings under the Act where the Tribunal Rules do not provide for a matter of procedure. Therefore, to the Claimants regarding the 453 Lands and 455 Lands, Rule 6.01 of the Rules of CP apply whereby two or more proceedings be heard at the same time of one immediately after the other, where it appears that:
a. They have a question of law or fact in common; b. The relief claimed in them arise out of the same transaction, or occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; or c. For any other reason an order ought to be made under this rule.
10The Claimants submit that the criteria listed in Rule 6.01 of the Rules of CP have not been met and that the balance of convenience does not favour the matters being heard at the same event.
11Lastly, counsel representing the 848 Claimant and 851 Claimant note that they are unavailable during the hearing dates scheduled for the 860 Claimant.
POSITION OF THE 860 CLAIMANT
12The 860 Claimant’s position is that there is no efficiency in having the three files heard at the same hearing event, given the fact that the pleadings in the respective matters demonstrate little commonality with respect to the potential evidence to be called, theory of the respective matters, and anticipated types of witnesses to be called. The Claimant referenced a 2023 Decision of the Tribunal, Southwest Georgetown Landowners Group Inc. v Halton Hills (Town), 2023 CanLII 12228 (ON LT), where Vice-Chair Braun considered a list of factors consistently utilized by the Tribunal in respect of a consolidation. The list is as follows:
i. Are there common facts, common issues and common law? ii. What would constitute the most efficient use of the Tribunal’s time? iii. Is there prejudice which may result to any party as a result of the consolidation or hearing together? iv. What is most fair to all parties? v. Is there a possibility that a decision in one matter may predetermine a subsequent matter before the Tribunal or result in the possibility of contradictory Tribunal decisions? vi. What is the ability and jurisdiction of the Tribunal to deal with all of the issues affecting a proposal in a comprehensive manner?
13The 860 Claimant notes that its property, the 449 Lands, is not adjacent to either the 453 Lands or 455 Lands. Further, as the 455 Lands’ appeal has pled that the only dispute with respect to market value is the size of the existing commercial and has not pled that a different highest use ought to be considered by the Tribunal that there is little commonality with the 449 Lands’ appeal. The 860 Claimant also notes that neither the market value claim nor the business loss claim in the 455 Lands’ appeal have nothing to do with any of the claims raised in its appeal.
14The Claimant goes on to detail the differences between its claim and that of 453 Lands, noting that in the 453 Lands matter the sole claim being advanced is a claim for market value. In the 453 Lands matter it is stated that the highest and best use of the site was a mixed-use high rise as part of a larger assembly with neighbouring properties along Queen Street West. The Claimant notes that the 453 Lands’ pleading does not specify which of the neighbouring properties would be part of its assembly scenario and did not specifically identify the 449 Lands as being part of that hypothetical assembly.
15The Claimant notes that it has “no idea” what witnesses will be called by the other two expropriation appeals and notes that neither of those “matters appear to be very advanced given that no Affidavit of Documents or Schedule ‘A’ Productions seem to have been exchanged”. The 860 Claimant notes that “discoveries will be scheduled to be held shortly” for its matter, “assuming this motion is dismissed”. The 860 Claimant submits that if the matters are to be heard together, then its January scheduled hearing dates would have to be vacated in order to coordinate discoveries with the other proceedings, which would cause prejudice to the 860 Claimant herein.
METROLINX REPLY
16In its Reply to Response (“Reply”), Metrolinx notes that, as all three matters are all in the early stages of litigation, there would be no prejudice to any of the matters if the files are heard sequentially by the Tribunal. Metrolinx submitted that the only substantive concern regarding prejudice was raised by the 860 Claimant with respect to the 449 Lands, that being the matter of a possible delay of discoveries. Metrolinx also stated that the Claimants’ responses to the Motion did not provide any substantive response to Metrolinx’s concerns with respect to inconsistent findings, efficient use of Tribunal resources, or highest and best use concerns. To Metrolinx, these concerns overrise any concerns with respect to scheduling discoveries.
17All three Claimants objected to Metrolinx’s Reply, taking the position that Metrolinx was attempting to raise new issues. The Tribunal declined to have the Parties provide submissions on this point, which will be discussed in further detail below.
TRIBUNAL ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Metrolinx Reply to Response
18The 851 Claimant and 848 Claimant referenced Rule 16.1 of the Rules, which is titled ‘Consolidating Proceedings or Hearing Matters Together’, in its Notice of Response to Motion and used this as the basis for their argument that the relief sought by Metrolinx is unclear, as Rule 16.1 states:
The Tribunal may order that two or more proceedings or any part of them, be consolidated, heard at the same time, or heard one after the other, or stay or adjourn any matter until the determination of any other matter, subject to any applicable statutory or regulatory restrictions.
The argument raised by the 848 Claimant and 851 Claimant is that Metrolinx seeks an order that the Matters “be heard together, one after another”. Their position suggests that the omission of “or” from the Metrolinx Notice of Motion rendered the relief requested by Metrolinx as unclear and incapable of being granted. While Metrolinx could have been clearer in their ask that the three appeals be heard one after the other at the same hearing event, it is clear that it was not requesting that the files be consolidated given the reference to Rule 16.3 of the Rules in paragraph 54. of its Notice of Motion. The Tribunal considers Metrolinx’s clarification in its Reply to be minor and nothing turned on this point.
19The second point of contention was the Metrolinx’s response to the argument of prejudice raised by the 860 Claimant in its Notice of Response to Motion. The 860 Claimant, in an email to the Case Coordinator, argued that as Metrolinx is represented by experienced counsel who “could have anticipated that prejudice would be raised by the responding parties”, that prejudice was therefore not a new issue and as such it was not proper for Metrolinx to address it in its Reply. The 860 Claimant urged the Tribunal to “be mindful of the nature of a reply submission to accord fairness to the parties”. With respect to Metrolinx’s Reply, the Tribunal is guided by Rule 26.2 of the Rules, which notes that Part I of the Rules applies with necessary modifications to Rule 26 of the Rules, which specifically addresses expropriation matters. Therefore, Rule 21.3(c) of the Rules, which covers procedures for the exchange of documents in written hearings, applies to this Motion. The Rule states,
c. the moving party may reply to the other parties’ responses, with a copy to the Tribunal, within 10 days after the date for service of the responses, and the reply shall be limited to any new evidence or issues in the responses that the moving party could not have addressed at the outset of their case.
20The Tribunal finds that the 860 Claimant raised the issue of prejudice in its Notice of Response to Motion and Metrolinx responded to that issue.
Rule 16.3 of the Rules
21In accordance with s. 12(2) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021 (“OLTA”), the Tribunal shall adopt any practice or procedure that provides it with the “best opportunity for a fair, just and expeditious resolution of the merits” of a proceeding. The Tribunal is mindful of this directive, which is repeated in Rule 1.3 of the Rules, along with the requirement that the Rules be granted a liberal interpretation. Rule 16 of the Rules flows from s. 21 of the OLTA and provides the Tribunal broad discretion to: order two or more proceedings consolidated; heard together; heard one after the other; or to stay or adjourn any matter until the determination of another matter, subject to any applicable statutory or regulatory restrictions. The intent behind Rule 16 of the Rules is efficiency, and in deciding whether to order proceedings consolidated or heard together the Tribunal has consistently considered efficiency along with other factors, including fairness/potential prejudice and the potential for inconsistency in decision making. The Tribunal has framed its decision on this Motion by balancing what is fair, just, and the appropriate means of ensuring an efficient resolution of these expropriation files. In doing so it has weighed the factors listed by Vice-Chair Braun, which can be found at paragraph [12] of this Decision.
Common Facts and Issues
22There are obviously common factors between the three appeals. The properties are in close proximity along Queen Street West and have been expropriated in respect of the same transit project. However, the buildings are of different sizes, were used for different purposes and have taken different approaches in their pleadings. While the files may have certain facts in common, coordination cannot be forced on the Claimants simply because of geographical closeness. Metrolinx is of the view that the evidence and experts it will bring will be the same for the three appeals. However, whether the parameters of some expert evidence may be common and shared among the Claimants’ experts is unknown at this time. Whether there is sufficient commonality among the three files given the basis upon which the claims have been advanced, the form of compensation requested, and the retention of separate experts is largely unknown at this time. Currently, the Tribunal agrees with the Claimants that notwithstanding some common features between the three expropriations, there are important differences. While two of the Claimants share counsel, the manner in which they instruct counsel and direct their claims may vary. The files are at different stages of the process and the methodology with respect to the type of expropriation compensation claims being advanced differs.
Risk of Inconsistent Findings
23Metrolinx raised a concern with how the three sets of Claimants have framed their claims with respect to the highest and best use of their respective properties. Whether a theoretical “joint venture” approach of a combination of property owners assembling their properties for redevelopment is the appropriate approach must be adjudicated through a hearing on the merits of the appeal. Metrolinx raises the concern of possible inconsistent findings as the 860 Claimant’s pleadings incorporate the lands of the 851 Claimant into the highest and best use scenario. The 848 Claimant has similarly incorporated the 851 Claimant’s lands into its claim for additional market value compensation. This, in turn, may lead to inconsistency with the market value position taken by the 851 Claimant, as assembly was not explicitly pled in that claim.
24An expropriation hearing focuses solely on the property before it and does not require consideration of the impact of an expropriation of other separate land parcels and the disparate interests of adjoining landowners. As the Claimants have taken different approaches to presenting their claims, which is their right, and are utilizing different experts, the risk of contradictory findings, or for a decision in one matter predetermining another, may be managed by counsel and expert witnesses whose function, as set out in Rule 7.5 of the Rules, is to assist the Tribunal by providing fair, objective, and non-partisan opinion evidence. With such different approaches utilized by the Claimants, hearing the matters consecutively may unduly complicate matters or fetter the discretion of the presiding Member.
Fairness & Efficiency
25While scheduling a hearing often forces parties to take more determinative steps to move a file forward, the Tribunal must consider if it is fair to delay proceedings to allow others to “catch up”. On the other hand, overly ambitious start dates for hearings will inevitably be adjourned as there simply isn’t enough time for the Parties to complete all procedural steps. It is unfortunate that the Tribunal often finds itself in the position of chivvying Parties along to keep files on track and PO requirements met in a timely manner. While the Parties agree about the pace of a proceeding and the steps required to advance same, when this schedule is set down in a PO it is the Tribunal that essentially owns the PO. In short, POs are Tribunal directives, not suggestions.
26Metrolinx argues that, in terms of fairness and efficiency, it is simpler and more cost-effective for them to prepare for one coordinated proceeding than three separate hearings where they would be calling the same witnesses. The 848 Claimant explains that its PO is “defective” and counsel for Metrolinx and the 851 Claimant have not yet consented to or submitted a draft PO for the Tribunal’s review and approval. The 860 Claimant raises the concern that its hearing dates, scheduled to begin on January 26, 2026, will likely have to be vacated in order to coordinate discoveries and availabilities of three sets of experts and two sets of counsel. The 860 Claimant noted that its proceedings were delayed for almost a year “as a result of procedural wrangling as set out in the prior decisions regarding Case Management Conferences conducted in 2023 and 2024”, and that further delay would only heighten the prejudice to the 860 Claimant.
27Is it fair and is it just to the 860 Claimant to delay its proceeding, in order that all three files move forward in a manner that is more efficient for Metrolinx to manage? Will the 848 Claimant be prepared in time for November 2025 hearing dates when discoveries have not yet been scheduled and it has not produced its Affidavit of Documents? When will the 851 Claimant be ready to produce a PO? A balance must be struck, the Tribunal need not find what it is the most and cost-effective means of proceeding for one Party, rather the Tribunal must consider all factors in what will result in a fair and expeditious process for all Parties involved.
28The Tribunal sympathizes with Metrolinx’s goal of streamlining expenses with respect to the adjudication of three claims; however, the Tribunal finds that the entirety of each proceeding cannot necessarily occur within the eight days set aside for the hearing of the OLT-23-000860 file in January 2026, particularly, as there is presently no appetite among the three Claimants to pool resources and experts. Further, there would be insufficient runway for all three Claimants to be prepared for a hearing in January 2026, and that in any event, counsel for two of the files are unavailable for those dates. The Tribunal is not prepared to adjourn the OLT-23-000860 hearing dates to allow OLT-23-000851 file to organize its claim. Although the Tribunal is pessimistic that OLT-23-000848 file will be prepared for its November 2025 hearing dates, these dates will remain in the Tribunal’s calendar for now. The Parties are reminded that if hearing dates need to be adjourned, then the Parties shall provide the Tribunal with no less than 35 days notice, to allow the Tribunal to redistribute those dates to another matter.
COSTS
29There shall be no award of costs.
ORDER
30THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:
a. The Motion by Metrolinx is dismissed in its entirety; b. A Procedural Order will be prepared for file OLT-23-000851 and filed with the Tribunal for approval and issuance by no later than Friday, July 25, 2025; c. An Amended Procedural Order will be filed for file OLT-23-000848 and filed with the Tribunal for approval and issuance by no later than Friday, July 18, 2025; and d. That Examinations for Discovery for files OLT-23-000860 and OLT-23-000848 be scheduled forthwith.
31The Member will remain available for continued case management to the extent that the Tribunal calendar permits.
“G.A. Croser”
G.A. CROSER
MEMBER
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.