Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
March 31, 2026
CASE NO.:
OLT-23-001050
OLT-23-001051
OLT-23-001055
OLT-23-001081
OLT-23-001083
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 26(1) of the Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.26, as amended
Claimant:
Joanne, John, and Jeffrey Ferguson
Respondent:
His Majesty the King in Right of the Province of Ontario, as represented by the Ministry of Transportation for the Province of Ontario
Description:
Determination of compensation
Property Address
7031 Littlewood Drive
Municipality:
City of London
OLT Case No.:
OLT-23-001050
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-23-001050
OLT Case Name:
Ferguson v. HMK in right of Ontario (Ministry of Transportation)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 26(1) of the Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.26, as amended
Claimant:
806433 Ontario Limited
Respondent:
His Majesty the King in Right of the Province of Ontario, as represented by the Ministry of Transportation for the Province of Ontario
Description:
Determination of compensation
Property Address
6283 Colonel Talbot Road
Municipality:
City of London
OLT Case No.:
OLT-23-001051
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-23-001051
OLT Case Name:
806433 Ontario Limited v. HMK in right of Ontario (Ministry of Transportation)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 26(1) of the Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.26, as amended
Claimant:
806433 Ontario Limited
Respondent:
His Majesty the King in Right of the Province of Ontario, as represented by the Ministry of Transportation for the Province of Ontario
Description:
Determination of compensation
Property Address
6732 Colonel Talbot Road
Municipality:
City of London
OLT Case No.:
OLT-23-001055
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-23-001055
OLT Case Name:
806433 Ontario Limited v. HMK in right of Ontario (Ministry of Transportation)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 26(1) of the Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.26, as amended
Claimant:
1068788 Ontario Limited
Respondent:
His Majesty the King in Right of the Province of Ontario, as represented by the Ministry of Transportation for the Province of Ontario
Description:
Determination of compensation
Property Address
6304 Glanworth Drive
Municipality:
City of London
OLT Case No.:
OLT-23-001081
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-23-001081
OLT Case Name:
1068788 Ontario Limited v. HMK in right of Ontario (Ministry of Transportation)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 26(b) of the Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.27
Claimant:
1068788 Ontario Limited
Respondent:
His Majesty the King in Right of the Province of Ontario, as represented by the Ministry of Transportation for the Province of Ontario
Description:
Determination of compensation
Property Address
6333 Glanworth Drive
Municipality/UT:
City of London
OLT Case No.:
OLT-23-001803
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-23-001803
OLT Case Name:
1068788 Ontario Limited v. HMK in right of Ontario (Ministry of Transportation)
Heard:
March 27, 2026 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Transportation (“MTO”)
L. Marsello S. Heidari P. Saraiva O. Zhao (articling student)
Joanne, John, and Jeffrey Ferguson 806433 Ontario Limited 1068788 Ontario Limited (“Claimants”)
P. Ledroit G. Murray (articling student)
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY WILLIAM MIDDLETON ON MARCH 27, 2026 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1The third Case Management Conference in this proceeding was held on March 27, 2026 (“CMC”). The previous Decisions in this matter recounted the history and details of this matter which need not be reiterated.
2By Order issued January 19, 2026 (amending the in-force Procedural Order), it being further to the previous Decision issued April 29, 2025, this matter had been scheduled to proceed to a 10-day hearing commencing April 13, 2026 (“Hearing”).
3Unfortunately, at the CMC it became clear to the Tribunal that the Hearing cannot proceed as scheduled and also that it is very unlikely to be completed in 10 hearing days in any event because:
(a) Examinations for discovery of the Claimants have not been fully-completed;
(b) There are undertakings given by the Claimants arising from the partially-completed examinations for discovery which remain outstanding, along with disputed questions asked;
(c) The Claimants wish to amend their Application and Statement of Claim (“Amendments”), and the MTO has consented to the Amendments on certain conditions;
(d) The MTO is entitled to deliver its amended Reply to the Amendments and to pursue additional documentary and oral discovery arising from the Amendments;
(e) Counsel for the Claimants may determine that he needs to retain one or more additional experts to provide written and oral evidence concerning certain matters alleged in the Amendments;
(f) The MTO is entitled to have its existing experts, and perhaps new experts, deliver reply witness statements to respond to any new evidence from additional experts acting for the Claimants; and
(g) In light of the above, and in all of the circumstances relating to this proceeding, the Tribunal is of the view that many more than 10 days of hearing time will be required for this matter.
4Apart from seeking leave to deliver the Amendments, counsel for the Claimants also sought additional days for the hearing of this matter, up to four-five weeks. The MTO professed to be ready to proceed on April 13, 2026, but of course wanted to be able to respond to the Amendments and to any new expert or fact evidence from the Claimants. As noted, it consents to the Amendments on condition that it: be permitted to conduct further discovery of the Claimants; be permitted to deliver additional witness statements from one or more witnesses; and be permitted to deliver its Reply to the Amendments.
5The Tribunal noted that the proposed Amendments were not in the proper form and substance and should be further revised. A Notice of Application under Rule 26.11 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rule”) should only briefly describe the necessary background and nature of claims made in six or less paragraphs – the Statement of Claim should then contain the full particulars of the material fact allegations and specific details of the claims being pursued.
6While the Tribunal acknowledges the past delays in this proceeding, the long-scheduled Hearing and also the professed enthusiasm of counsel for the MTO, its determination is that the Parties will not be prepared for the Hearing in light of the changed circumstances described in paragraph [3] above. Moreover, as noted, the Tribunal finds that many more than 10 days of hearing time will be required.
7While the issues of market value compensation for the partial taking of the Claimants’ lands and the resultant alleged injurious affection claims may not be unduly complex or different from the types of claims commonly pursued in Expropriation Act proceedings, the reality is that it appears there may be at least 12 or more witnesses called in respect of five related proceedings. It has been the Tribunal’s consistent past experience that in these circumstances, if all issues remain for adjudication, the hearing of this case will require at least 20 hearing days to complete the evidence of both Parties. The five related proceedings will be heard together, but a hearing plan will need to be completed for the review and consideration of the Tribunal to ensure a fair and efficient process. The suggestions made in written submissions by the MTO for the CMC seem sensible, but the Parties will need to further discuss those.
8The Tribunal canvassed counsel for both Parties in order to ascertain whether an approximate 20-day hearing block might be scheduled for later in 2026. Unfortunately, neither the Claimant or the MTO appeared to be available for that. Thus, it is evident that the final hearing of this case will likely proceed sometime in the first quarter of 2027. However, both counsel need time to discuss the availability of their fact and expert witnesses. Moreover, counsel for the Claimants also needs to determine whether it requires one or more additional expert witnesses to address the issues now raised in the Amendments.
9After discussion, the Tribunal agreed to schedule a further Case Management Conference to take place on Wednesday, April 22, 2026, at 10 a.m. as follows:
10Parties and/or Participants and/or Observers are asked to log in to the event at least 15 minutes before it begins to test their video and audio connections:
GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/687587165
Access code: 687-587-165
11Parties and/or Participants 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
12Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoTo Meeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to it by calling in to an audio-only telephone line: +1 (647) 497-9373 or (Toll Free) 1-888-299-1889. The access code is: 687-587-165.
13Individuals 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.
14As of March 30, 2026, all hearing events are governed by the Tribunal’s Artificial Intelligence Practice Direction. This Practice Direction requires a party, participant, or witness to include a declaration within each submitted document if generative AI was used to create or generate content.
15MTO sought an Order for ‘costs thrown away’ in respect of the previously scheduled Hearing and, presumably, in respect of the CMC. The Tribunal is not prepared to consider an interim costs award in this regard, and no evidence was provided by MTO – beyond argument – to support such a claim.
16The Tribunal generally discourages interim costs motions in expropriation cases and is reluctant to entertain such claims because to do so might result in additional interim motion practice and thus would not promote the most expeditious, cost-effective and fair resolution of these proceedings on their merits. Thus, any claims for costs incurred to date, or for any period up to the eventual hearing, shall be reserved for determination by the Member who presides at that hearing or on any motion brought later to seek adjudication of costs under Rule 26.19 following a settlement. In Ontario civil litigation proceedings, this was historically known as “costs to be determined in the cause”.
17As a final note, although the Parties have advised that past mediation efforts were unsuccessful, the Tribunal recommends that the Parties continue to consider whether additional mediation might assist them to achieve a full or partial resolution of this proceeding or to at least narrow the issues which must be adjudicated at the final hearing of this case.
ORDER
18THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:
(a) The Claimants shall make best reasonable efforts to advise the Tribunal and counsel for the Ministry of Transportation (“MTO”) by on or before April 15, 2026 as to:
(i) the identity and professional discipline of any additional expert witnesses that they intend to retain to deliver evidence in this matter; and
(ii) the anticipated dates by which the witnesses described in (i) will deliver witness statements / expert reports
(b) The Claimants shall deliver its proposed amended Notice of Application and Statement of Claim, in proper form and substance, by on or before April 15, 2026, and the MTO shall deliver its Reply to same within 10 days thereafter;
(c) The Parties shall attend the Case Management Conference as scheduled above, and shall be prepared to discuss and schedule final hearing dates in 2027 for this matter and to present the draft form of a new Procedural Order; and
(d) This Vice Chair shall remain seized in respect of the next Case Management Conference and for all matters relating to the ongoing case management of this proceeding, including all motion practice and any matters arising from the above Orders.
“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.