Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: August 27, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000849

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

Claimant: Craigholme Estates Ltd.

Respondent: Thames Valley District School Board

Description: Determination of Compensation

Property Address: 207 Seventh Avenue

Municipality/UT: Municipality of Central Elgin

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000849

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000849

OLT Case Name: Craigholme Estates Ltd. v. Thames Valley District School Board

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

Request by: Craigholme Estates Ltd.

Request for: Request for Directions

Heard: August 20, 2025, by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties Craigholme Estates Ltd. (“Claimant”)

Counsel Ondrej Sabo

Parties Thames Valley District School Board (“Respondent”)

Counsel Ken Strong

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY JEAN-PIERRE BLAIS ON August 20, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1The Claimant seeks to develop a residential subdivision on vacant lands known municipally as 207 Seventh Avenue in the Municipality of Central Elgin and legally described as Part Lot 2, Concession 7, designated as Part 1, Plan 33R-8653 (“Subject Property”) for the construction of detached and semi-detached dwellings. The Subject Property was partially expropriated by the Respondent for the construction of a primary school in April 2023. The expropriated lands have an area of approximately 6.6966 acres (“Expropriated Lands”). This has left an area of approximately 42.1 acres to be developed (“Remaining Lands”). The Claimant filed a Notice of Arbitration on August 23, 2023, under the Expropriation Act, R.S.O 1990, c. E.26 (“Act”). ¹

2On August 20, 2025, the Tribunal held its second Case Management Conference (“CMC”) to consider a Motion for leave to amend the Amended Notice of Arbitration in accordance with the draft Amended Amended Notice of Arbitration, attached as Schedule A of the Claimant’s Motion Record (“Proposed Amended Claim”), made pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”). The Motion is dated August 5, 2025.

3At first, through its initial pleadings, the Claimant was principally seeking compensation for the fee simple taking, based on an alleged market value of not less than $13,900,000, or approximately $2,100,000 per acre for the Expropriated Lands. Now, the Proposed Amended Claim seeks to add, among other things, the following two claims:

a. “The sum of not less than $48,000,000 as Injurious Affection to the remainder” (paragraph 12(b) of the Proposed Amended Claim); and,

b. “Disturbance damages for developmental delays, and increased engineering and servicing costs to the remaining lands caused by the subject expropriation, the full particulars of which are not yet known” (paragraph 12(f) of the Proposed Amended Claim).

4As a result of a first CMC held on November 8, 2024, the matter was originally set for a 14-day Merit Hearing commencing on February 2, 2026. Examinations for discovery were to have been completed by both Parties on or before August 29, 2025, with further procedural steps thereafter.

ISSUES

5The Claimant’s Motion raises three issues:

a. Is the Claim for injurious affection statute barred?

b. Has the Claimant provided sufficient particulars with respect to the claims for injurious affection and disturbance damages?

c. What consequential changes to the proceeding must occur?

IS THE CLAIM FOR INJURIOUS AFFECTION STATUTE BARRED?

6The Respondent opposes the amendment with respect to the claim for injurious affection alleging that it is statute barred pursuant to section 22(1) of the Act, which provides that a claim for compensation for injurious affection shall be made in writing by the person suffering the damage or the loss within one year after the damage was sustained or after it became known to the person. If not so made, the right to compensation is forever barred.

7The Tribunal finds that the claim to injurious affection is not statute barred based on the evidence provided at this CMC.

8The affidavit evidence provided by the Claimant in support of its Motion states that, at the time of the expropriation in 2023, it was expected and reasonable to assume that the development agreement would be completed with the municipality within a few months. This would have opened the way for the Claimant’s development of the Remaining Lands. However, the affidavit evidence indicates that the municipality has refused to issue the development agreement despite repeated demands by the Claimant and meetings between the Parties. The affiant asserts that this was caused by the Respondent wanting to service the Expropriated Lands on their own. For the Claimant, this delay makes it necessary to seek an amendment to its Amended Notice of Arbitration.

9The Claimant received an updated Appraisal/Damages report prepared by Ben Lansink of Lansink Appraisals and Consulting (“Updated Lansink Report”). It is dated July 7, 2025, and the Tribunal reasonably assumes it was received contemporaneously by the Claimant. The Respondent admits having received it on July 21, 2025. The Updated Lansink Report forms part of the Claimant’s Motion Record.

10Mr. Lansink concludes that there has been a reduction in the market value of the Remaining Lands based on the drop in demand for residential subdivision properties in Ontario “during the last 1 to 2 years” due to a combination of factors such as higher interest rates, availability of inventory, declining housing starts, restrictive policies, changing consumer preferences towards more affordable housing such as condominium apartments, economic uncertainties and reduced population-driven demand due to immigration policy changes. The Report concludes that the value of the 42.1 acres of Remaining Lands has gone from $2,068,214 per acre to $930,000 per acre, thus resulting in damages for injurious affection of $47,918,788.

11The affidavit evidence provided by the Respondent does not contradict, in any way, the factual assertions of the Claimant, i.e. that the Claimant became aware of or discovered the loss or damage attributable to the alleged changes in market conditions in July 2025. Nor does the Respondent’s evidence demonstrate that the Claimant should have reasonably been aware of that alleged damage before July 2025. The Claimant sought leave to amend its pleading within approximately one month after discovering that injurious affection damages had arisen, based on the analysis of its expert appraiser.

12The Tribunal notes that Counsel for the Respondent admitted in his oral arguments that the Tribunal is extremely cautious to deny a claim based on the expiry of a limitation period.² Whilst there may be some cases where the Tribunal may and should be willing to take that step, this is not one of them.³

13The Tribunal underscores that whether the Claimant is successful in its claim for injurious affection, and the potential quantum of damages attributable thereto (if any), will ultimately be decided in the context of the Merit Hearing to be held in the future. The Tribunal’s decision herein is merely that a claim for injurious affection may be advanced, not that it has been fully demonstrated or quantified.

14As the quantum of the alleged injurious affection is based in part on the change in the value of the Remaining Lands, the Tribunal also notes that there may be further fluctuations in the purported value of those Remaining Lands over time, which will have to be assessed based on a full evidentiary record at the Merit Hearing.

HAS THE CLAIMANT PROVIDED SUFFICIENT PARTICULARS WITH RESPECT TO THE CLAIMS FOR INJURIOUS AFFECTION AND DISTURBANCE DAMAGES?

15The Respondent objects to the amendments to the Proposed Amended Claim with respect to injurious affection claim and disturbance damages claim. The Respondent argues that both claims fail to meet the requirements of Rule 26.11 of the Tribunal’s Rules, and that the claim for injurious affection also fails to meet the statutory requirement for particulars set out at section 22(1) of the Act. By contrast, the Claimant submits that the particulars will only become apparent to the Claimant later in the proceeding, particularly after examinations for discovery.

16Rule 26.11 of the Rules provides that the Claimant’s Application and Statement of Claim must set out the amount claimed, the basis upon which the amount is calculated and the facts in support of each element of compensation claimed.

17With respect to the claim for injurious affection, section 22(1) of the Act not only provides the time frame within which the claim for injurious affection must be made, as discussed above, it also provides that the particulars of the claim must be provided or else the right to compensation is forever barred.

18The Tribunal agrees with the Claimant that the basis for the injurious affection claim is contained the Updated Lansink Report. They could arguably be considered to have been implicitly incorporated by reference into the proposed amended pleadings. However, given the clear language of Rule 26.11 of the Rules, the Tribunal finds that it is preferable that the particulars be set out in the actual Application and Statement of Claim. The Respondent would thus have clear notice of the case it must meet.

19The Tribunal agrees with the Respondent that the Claimant has failed to provide sufficient particulars with respect to both these claims in its Proposed Amended Claim. The quantum of the claims and the factual foundations supporting them are lacking.

20The Tribunal concludes that it is premature to grant leave for the Proposed Amended Claim in the absence of further particulars with respect to these two claims. Given section 12(2) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, S.O. 2021, c. 4, and in order to offer the best opportunity for a fair, just and expeditious resolution of the merits of the proceeding, the Tribunal directs that the Claimant will be given a short period of time to propose further amendments with respect to both the claim for injurious affection and the claim for disturbance damages that set out the following: (a) the expected quantum of the claim; (b) the alleged basis upon which the amount is calculated; and (c) the alleged factual basis that supports that claim.

21If both Parties agree with the further amendments to be proposed by the Claimant, they are directed to inform the Tribunal of their agreement by close of business on Monday, September 29, 2025.

22The Claimant is directed to file with the Tribunal its revised Proposed Amended Claim by close of business on Wednesday, October 1, 2025, copying the Respondent.

NEXT STEPS

23As a result of this Motion, the scheduling of this second CMC, and the scheduling of an additional CMC as directed below, the various filing dates set out in the Procedural Order of November 2024 must be suspended, and the Hearing which had been scheduled to commence for Monday, February 2, 2026, must be adjourned. The Tribunal so directs.

24Moreover, the Tribunal directs as follows:

a. A third CMC be set for Friday, October 3, 2025, by video conference at 10 a.m.;

b. A 15-day Merit Hearing be set for Monday, September 28, 2026, by video conference at 10 a.m. The Tribunal will not sit on Wednesday, September 30, 2026, Monday, October 12, 2026, and Monday, October 19, 2026; and,

c. The Parties are to file a complete draft Procedural Order by Monday, September 29, 2025.

25The third CMC will consider disagreements (if any) with respect to the Claimant’s proposed particulars for the claim of injurious affection and the claim for disturbance damages, the Claimant’s revised Proposed Amended Claim, and the revised draft Procedural Order. No further arguments are to be filed with respect to the proposed particulars for the claim of injurious affection and the claim for disturbance damages if they are the subject of disagreements as between the Parties. That issue will be considered based on the oral arguments of Counsel for the Parties at the third CMC.

26For the third CMC, individuals are asked to log in to the event at least 15 minutes before it begins to test their video and audio connections.

Third CMC on Friday, October 3, 2025, at 10.a.m

GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/656004293

Access Code: 656-004-293

Audio-only Access Code: +1 (647) 497-9373

Toll-Free Access Code: 1-888-299-1889

27For the Merit Hearing, individuals are asked to log in to the event at least 15 minutes before it begins to test their video and audio connections.

15-day Merit Hearing on Monday, September 28, 2026, at 10 a.m.

GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/519389173

Access Code: 519-389-173

Audio-only Access Code: +1 (647) 497-9373

Toll-Free Access Code: 1-888-299-1889

28Individuals are asked to access and set up the application well in advance of the event to avoid unnecessary delay. The desktop application can be downloaded at GoTo Meeting or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html

29Individuals are directed to connect to the event on the assigned date at the correct time. It is the responsibility of the persons participating in the event to ensure that they are properly connected at the correct time. Questions prior to the event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator.

COSTS

30No Order as to costs will be made at this time. However, the Tribunal notes that Counsel for the Claimant has been on notice of the need to provide particulars of his client’s claim in this proceeding since November 8, 2024, the date of the first CMC in this matter. The Claimant’s recent failure to do so has resulted, in part, for the need for this contested second CMC, a third CMC, and additional delays in this proceeding.

ORDER

31THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS its directions in this Decision.

32The Member is seized of the third CMC, but is not seized of the Merit Hearing.

“Jean-Pierre Blais”

JEAN-PIERRE BLAIS 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.

Footnotes

1. 1The Tribunal notes that the Claimant uses the antiquated title “Notice of Arbitration” in its pleadings rather than the current title “Application and Statement of Claim” set out in the Rules.
2. 2Shell Lake Developments Ltd. V. Ontario (Minister of Transportation), 2012 106 LC.R. 209 (O.M.B.), paragraph 16.
3. 3Random Leaseholds & Manufacturing Ltd. V. Ontario (Ministry of Transportation), 1995 CarswellOnt 5184 (O.M.B.).