Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: April 29, 2026

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

Heard: April 21, 2026 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Craigholme Estates Ltd. ("Claimant")	O. Sabo
Thames Valley District School Board ("Board")	K. Strong

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY WILLIAM R. MIDDLETON ON APRIL 21, 2026 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

1This matter involves a long-standing proceeding commenced almost three years ago on August 30, 2023. It concerns claims brought by the Claimant under section 26 of the Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.26, as against the Board arising from the Board’s expropriation of part of the Claimant’s lands municipally known as 207 Seventh Avenue in the Municipality of Central Elgin.

2A third Case Management Conference ("CMC") was held on April 21, 2026. The first CMC was held on November 21, 2024 and the second CMC was held on October 3, 2025.

3The circumstances here are unusual. It is rare for the Tribunal to hold more than one CMC in an expropriation proceeding – and often a CMC oral hearing event is simply unnecessary in expropriation cases because invariably the parties usually only need to obtain a hearing date in order to then propose a draft Procedural Order ("PO") for the Tribunal’s consideration and finalization. After correspondence from the Tribunal confirming the hearing date, the draft PO can usually be finalized without holding an oral CMC hearing event.

4The Decision arising from the November 21, 2024 CMC – 17 months ago - set out agreed procedural deadlines and, with the Parties’ consent, scheduled a 14-day hearing commencing February 2, 2026. Notwithstanding this, because these Parties were apparently unprepared for the February 2026 hearing, a further CMC was held on October 3, 2025, almost a full year later. The Decision arising from that second CMC then scheduled a new 15-day hearing to commence on Monday, September 28, 2026 and also issued a new PO – once again all of this was on consent as proposed by the Parties.

5This third CMC was requested by the Board and the Claimant to seek ‘directions’ concerning matters of status. Then, suddenly, one day prior to this hearing, on April 20, 2026, the Board’s counsel advised the Tribunal by email that these Parties are "...looking to book a new hearing date starting on or about June 7, 2027." This together with previous correspondence, noted that there had been delay in arranging the examination for discovery of the Claimant’s representative due to the passing of his spouse earlier in 2026. However, the required examinations of the Board’s representative have been completed and the examination for discovery of the Claimant’s representative is now scheduled for Thursday, May 28, 2026.

6The Tribunal responded to the April 20, 2026 correspondence by indicating that the agreed September 2026 hearing would not be adjourned except pursuant to a ruling made pursuant to a motion brought under Rule 17. This requirement was also a set out in the existing PO issued on October 7, 2025.

7Neither Party filed a motion under Rule 17 nor any further supporting information prior to the April 21, 2026 CMC.

ADJOURNMENT OF FIXED HEARING DATES ARE NOT ROUTINELY GRANTED

8For the last several years, the Tribunal has made it clear to its stakeholders in expropriation proceedings – claimants, authorities and their respective legal counsel – that adjournment of hearing dates scheduled on consent of the Parties will not be granted ‘for convenience’. This has been communicated in numerous case management conferences and also during presentations made on behalf of the Tribunal at seminars organized by the Ontario Expropriation Association and the Ontario Bar Association.

9By establishing hearing dates which are ‘fixed’, subject only to adjournments granted under Rule 17, the Tribunal provides certainty to parties in expropriation cases. As was the situation here, hearing dates are established only after consultation with and agreement by the parties’ legal counsel. Moreover, because of the special interim steps required in expropriation proceedings, the hearing date is usually 12-18 months following the issuance of the PO. This allows the parties a great deal of time to complete those steps and to prepare for a final hearing. Finally, the PO itself is developed only with input from the parties’ counsel as to the various dates and deadlines working back from the hearing date. Often, on consent of the parties, certain dates are later adjusted as required to account for various circumstances and delays.

10One exception to the requirement that an otherwise agreed hearing date will not be adjourned except pursuant to a Rule 17 Order is when the parties advise that they are involved in a mediation proceeding or otherwise engaged in productive settlement negotiations. This exception is consistent with the Tribunal’s encouragement of parties to, wherever possible, to resolve disputed proceedings before the final hearing.

11It has been the consistent experience of the Tribunal that its practice of fixing hearing dates and developing POs with the involvement and concurrence of the parties and their counsel greatly assists the parties in working toward resolution of their disputes or, alternatively, fully preparing for a final hearing. In this respect, the Tribunal has found that this well-established process provides the best opportunity to achieve a fair, just, expeditious and cost-effective resolution of the merits of the proceedings. Of course, this is consistent with section 12(2) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021 and with Rule 1.3 of the OLT Rules of Practice and Procedure.

NO CURRENT CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANTING A THIRD RESCHEDULING OF THE HEARING

12The relevant provisions of Rule 17 are (below emphasis added):

a. Hearing Dates Fixed Hearing events will take place on the date set unless the Tribunal agrees to an adjournment. Adjournments will not be allowed that may prevent the Tribunal from completing and disposing of its proceedings within any applicable prescribed time period.

b. Requests for Adjournment if All Parties Consent If all of the parties agree, they may make a written request to adjourn a hearing event. The request must include the reasons, a suggested new date, and the written consents of all parties. However, the Tribunal may require that the parties attend in person or convene an electronic hearing to request an adjournment wherein the Tribunal will consider its powers under Rule 17.5, even if all of the parties consent. The consenting parties are expected to present submissions to the Tribunal on the application of any prescribed time period to dispose of the proceeding.

17.5 Powers of Tribunal upon Adjournment Request The Tribunal may,

a. grant the request.

b. grant the request and fix a new date or, where appropriate, the Tribunal will schedule a case management conference on the status of the matter;

c. grant a shorter adjournment than requested;

d. deny the request, even if all parties have consented;

e. direct that the hearing proceed as scheduled but with a different witness, or evidence on another issue;

f. grant an indefinite adjournment, if the Tribunal finds no substantial prejudice to the other parties or to the Tribunal’s schedule and the Tribunal concludes the request is reasonable for the determination of the issues in dispute. In this case, a party must make a request, or the Tribunal on its own initiative may direct, that the hearing be rescheduled or resumed as the case may be;

g. convert the scheduled date to a mediation or case management conference; and

h. make any other appropriate order.

13As noted, the Board’s counsel was requested prior to this status hearing to bring a motion seeking an adjournment pursuant to Rule 17 and to provide supporting materials. Although this did not occur, the Tribunal accepts that there had been some explanation of the request made in the correspondence. At the CMC, the Tribunal then asked for and received further elaboration from both counsel for the Parties by way of oral submissions.

14Based on the submissions made by the Parties the Tribunal was not convinced that there is any current justification for the adjournment of the September 28, 2026 hearing. Although it is clear that the examination for discovery of the Claimant’s representative has been delayed, it is now set for a date that is four full months prior to the start of the hearing. This is the only outstanding oral examination.

15The Tribunal, while recognizing the importance of this last examination, pointed out to both counsel that the core elements of the Claimant’s case seeking damages for market value compensation and disturbance damages/injurious affection will be rooted in expert opinion evidence – not solely the views of the Claimant’s fact witness. Certainly, the factual evidence of the Claimant’s representative will be relied on by the Claimant’s appraisal and economic loss experts. However, those facts could have been long ago imparted by the Claimant and his counsel to those expert witnesses who should already be preparing their reports in draft form. While the experts’ final factual assumptions need to accurately reflect whatever sworn evidence is provided on examination, there is no need to delay that preparation process nor the hearing itself. Nor did the Claimant’s counsel suggest this.

16The Board’s counsel maintained that he expects to receive much more new information – including documentation – from the Claimant through the oral examination process. However, upon enquiry from the Tribunal, he conceded that supplementary affidavits of documents and the documents themselves were required to be delivered more than three months ago on January 14, 2026 under the agreed (second) PO. Counsel for the Board then argued that it is likely that unspecified additional documents now exist that should have been produced by the Claimant – a point which was disputed by the Claimant’s counsel. Yet, it was open to the Board’s counsel to have filed a motion with the Tribunal months ago to seek a further and better affidavit of documents or the production of documents from the Claimant.

17The Tribunal noted that if the Board still believes that there are documentary disclosure deficiencies, then a written motion should be filed immediately – the result of which could be a Tribunal Order for the production of such material prior to the May 28, 2026 examination. This would presumably make that examination even more useful – there is no need to wait until the oral examination to request relevant productions and then to wait again for undertakings or ‘refused questions’ to be dealt with or to bring a motion if they are not. This type of ‘old school’ litigation delay is easily avoided. Written motions will be dealt with expeditiously by the Tribunal particularly where it becomes apparent that they will assist the Parties’ preparation for an imminent hearing. The same holds true for the Claimant although at this hearing the Claimant’s counsel did not identify any documentary disclosure deficiencies on the part of the Board.

18Ultimately, if at the final hearing the Claimant seeks to rely on information or documentation that was not appropriately provided to the Board through the documentary and oral discovery process, there will be evidentiary rulings and possible sanctions considered by the Member presiding at the hearing. Parties in expropriation cases are not permitted to conduct ‘trial by ambush’.

19Simply put, none of the submissions made by either the Board’s counsel or counsel for the Claimant convinced the Tribunal that there is any current need to grant a second adjournment to establish the third new hearing date.

REVISED PROCEDURAL ORDER

20The Tribunal does recognize that some of the current dates in the PO will need to be changed. Of particular importance will be the dates for delivery and exchange of witness statements/expert reports and reply witness statements/expert reports. In light of this, the Tribunal directed the Parties to revisit some of the deadline dates contained in the current PO and to provide a revised version for the consideration of the Tribunal.

21Subsequent to the hearing, the Parties provided a revised draft PO and the Tribunal has issued a new PO pursuant to its Orders made below.

ORDER

22THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

The Procedural Order appended as Attachment A shall now govern the conduct of this proceeding and shall supersede any previous procedural orders; and
This Vice-Chair shall remain seized of any matters arising from this Decision and for the ongoing case management of this proceeding, including all motion practice, but shall not be seized in respect of any mediation that may be convened or for the final hearing of this proceeding.

"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.

ATTACHMENT A

Ontario Land Tribunal

ISSUE DATE: 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

Subject: Determination of compensation

Property Address: 207 Seventh Avenue

Municipality/UT: Municipality of Central Elgin/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

PROCEDURAL ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

The Tribunal may vary or add to the directions in this procedural order at any time by an oral ruling or by another written order, either on the parties’ request or its own initiative.

Organization of the Hearing

The video hearing will begin on Monday, September 28, 2026 at 10:00 a.m.

GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/519389173 Access code: 519-389-173

The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is fifteen (15) days. The parties are expected to cooperate to reduce the length of the hearing by eliminating redundant evidence and attempting to reach settlements on issues where possible. The Tribunal will not sit on Wednesday, September 30, 2026, Monday, October 12, 2026, and Monday, October 19, 2026.
The parties are as set out in Attachment 1.
The Claimant’s Notice of Arbitration and Statement of Claim was filed with the Tribunal on or about August 31, 2023 and the Respondent’s Reply was filed with the Tribunal on or about September 15, 2023. On about January 28, 2025, the Claimant filed an Amended Notice of Arbitration, and on about February 27, 2025, the Respondent filed an Amended Reply. The Claimant’s Amended Amended Application and Statement of Claim, in the form agreed upon or as determined by the Tribunal, will be served on the Respondent and filed with the Tribunal on or before October 1, 2025. The Respondent’s Amended Amended Reply was served on the Claimant and filed with the Tribunal on or before November 17, 2025. The issues are set out in the Claimant’s Amended Amended Notice of Arbitration and the Respondent’s Amended Amended Reply, as noted in Attachment 2. Other than the amendments contemplated above, there will be no changes to the issues except by way of an amendment to a pleading as provided under Rule 7.8 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure and a party who asks for changes may have costs awarded against it.
The order of evidence shall be as set out in Attachment 3 to this Order. The Tribunal may limit the amount of time allocated for opening statements, evidence in chief (including the qualification of witnesses), cross-examination, evidence in reply and final argument. The length of written argument, if any, may be limited either on the parties’ consent, subject to the Tribunal’s approval, or by Order of the Tribunal. Any person who intends to participate in the hearing, including parties, counsel and witnesses, is expected to review the Tribunal’s Video Hearing Guide, available on the Tribunal’s website.
Set out below are prescribed procedural steps in this matter:

(a) The parties shall exchange Supplementary Affidavits of Documents (and copies of the documents) on or before January 14, 2026 and the Claimant shall provided an updated, sworn Affidavit of Documents prior to the Claimant’s examination for discover on May 28, 2026.

(b) Examinations for discovery shall be completed by both parties on or before June 5, 2026.

(d) A written motion to compel documentary production may be filed by either Party at any time.

(e) Motions arising from examinations and answers to undertakings shall be filed in writing only on or before July 17, 2026.

Requirements Before the Hearing

The parties agree that, if attendance at mediation is agreed to by both parties after the exchange of expert reports, the parties are to attend and participate in a mediation pursuant to Rule 18 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure before the Tribunal on or before September 14, 2026.
A party who intends to call witnesses, whether by summons or not, shall provide to the Tribunal and the other parties a list of the witnesses and the order in which they will be called. This list must be delivered on or before July 17, 2026. A party who intends to call an expert witness must include a copy of the witness’ Curriculum Vitae and the area of expertise in which the witness is prepared to be qualified.
Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before September 14, 2026 and use best efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts’ meeting, the parties may prepare and file a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before September 14, 2026.
An expert witness shall prepare an expert witness statement, which shall list any reports prepared by the expert, or any other reports or documents to be relied on at the hearing. Instead of a witness statement, the expert may file his or her entire report if it contains the required information. If this is not done, the Tribunal may refuse to hear the expert’s testimony.
Expert witnesses who are under summons but not paid to produce a report do not have to file an expert witness statement; but the party calling them must file a brief outline of the expert’s evidence as in paragraph 13 below. A party who intends to call a witness who is not an expert must file a brief outline of the witness’ evidence, as in paragraphs 13 and 14 below.
On or before July 24, 2026, the parties shall provide copies of their lay and expert witness statements / expert witness reports to the other parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator.
On or before August 28, 2026, the parties shall provide copies of their lay and expert reply witness statements / reply expert reports to the other parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator. If a party seeks to exclude or limit the oral or written evidence of any witness, it must file a written motion on or before September 7, 2026.
On or before September 14, 2026 the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.
On or before September 14, 2026, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.
The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book and a joint compendium of witness statements, bookmarked in PDF format including hyperlinks to all items listed in any table of contents, which shall be filed with the Tribunal on or before September 18, 2026.
Any documents which may be used by a party in cross examination of an opposing party’s witness shall be password protected and only be accessible to the Tribunal and the other parties if it is introduced as evidence at the hearing, pursuant to the directions provided by the OLT case co-ordinator, on or before 7:00 p.m. the day before that witness gives evidence.
A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal as soon as possible.
A party who provides written evidence of a witness to the other parties must have the witness attend the hearing to give oral evidence, unless the party notifies the Tribunal at least seven (7) days before the hearing that the written evidence is not part of their record.
The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before September 21, 2026 (with a proposed schedule for the hearing that identifies, as a minimum, the parties participating in the hearing, the preliminary matters (if any to be addressed), the anticipated order of evidence, the date each witness is expected to attend, the anticipated length of time for evidence to be presented by each witness in chief, cross-examination and re-examination (if any) and the expected length of time for final submissions. The parties are expected to ensure that the hearing proceeds in an efficient manner and in accordance with the hearing plan. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the hearing plan at any time in the course of the hearing.
All filings shall be submitted electronically. Electronic copies may be filed by email, an electronic file sharing service for documents that exceed 10MB in size, or as otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The delivery of documents by email shall be governed by Rule 7, save and except a Lawyer’s Certificate of Service is proof of the full transmission and receipt of the electronic service.
No adjournments or delays will be granted before or during the hearing in accordance with a motion brought pursuant to the Tribunal’s Rule 17.

TRIBUNAL REGISTRAR

KEY PROCEDURAL DATES

Step	Date to be Completed
Statement of Claim	August 31, 2023
Reply	September 15, 2023
Claimant’s amendments to Claim	October 1, 2025
Respondent’s amendments to Reply, if any	November 17, 2025
Exchange of Supplementary Affidavit of Documents	January 14, 2026
Appraisal Reports to be Relied on by Either Party served pursuant to Rule 26.28	January 26, 2026
Completion of Examinations for Discovery	June 5, 2026
Undertakings to be answered Written Motion to Compel Documentary Production	June 18, 2026 At any time
Motions arising from Examinations or Undertakings to be Scheduled	July 17, 2026
Exchange of Witness Lists	July 17, 2026
Exchange of Expert Witness Statements / Reports / Lay Witness Statements	July 24, 2026
Exchange of Expert Reply Witness Statements / Reply Reports Written Motion to limit or exclude evidence	August 28, 2026 September 7, 2026
Meeting of Like Experts	September 14, 2026
Experts’ Agreed Statement of Facts, if any	September 14, 2026
Mediation to be conducted before the OLT	September 14, 2026
Confirm with the Tribunal if all Reserved Hearing Dates still Required	September 14, 2026
Exchange of Visual Evidence	September 14, 2026
Joint Book of Documents and Joint Compendium of Witness statements to be filed in PDF format with bookmarking and hyperlinks to all items in any table of contents	September 18, 2026
Hearing Plan to be filed	September 21, 2026
Hearing – 15 days	September 28, 29, October 1, 2, 5-9, 13-16, 20, 21, 2026

Attachment 1

Party	Party Status	Counsel / Representative
Craigholme Estates Ltd.	Claimant	Ledroit Sabo 46 Ridout Street South London, ON N6C 3W6 Paul Ledroit (LSO #12470Q) T: 519-432-9051 x 200 pledroit@ledroitsabo.com Ondrej Sabo (LSO #62737R) T: 519-432-9051 x 201 osabo@ledroitsabo.com
Thames Valley District School Board	Respondent	Strong Nenniger Professional Corporation Unit D, 309 Commissioners Road West London, ON N6J 1Y4 Kenneth Strong (LSO # 42586U) Tel: 519-672-3535 strong@municipallawyers.ca

Attachment 2

OLT Case Number: OLT-23-000849

IN THE MATTER OF THE Expropriations Act and IN THE MATTER OF an arbitration

BETWEEN

CRAIGHOLME ESTATES LTD. Claimant

-and-

THAMES VALLEY DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD Respondent

ISSUES LIST

The issues shall be those as set out in the pleadings delivered by the Parties.

Attachment 3