Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: May 20, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000896

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

Claimant: Motor City Chrysler Limited

Respondent: Enwin Utilities Ltd., Windsor Utilities Commission, City of Windsor

Description: Determination of compensation

Property Address: 2300 Tecumseth Road E

Municipality/UT: City of Windsor

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000896

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000896

OLT Case Name: Motor City Chrysler Limited v. Windsor (City)

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

Request by: Motor City Chrysler Limited

Motion for: Directions

Heard: In Writing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Motor City Chrysler Limited	Richard L. Pollock
Corporation of the City of Windsor	Aaron Farough
Windsor Utilities Commission and ENWIN Utilities Ltd.	Tara Piurko Jesse White

DECISION DELIVERED BY bita m. rajaee and ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1This proceeding involves a claim for compensation by Motor City Chrysler Limited (“Claimant”) pursuant to s. 26(2)(a) of the Expropriation Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E26 (“Act”). The Respondents in this matter are the Corporation of the City of Windsor (“City”) and Windsor Utilities Commission (“WUC”) and ENWIN Utilities Ltd. (“ENWIN”), which are sister corporate entities, both owned and controlled by the City. ENWIN is a licensed electricity distribution company, and WUC operates the water system in the City, Tecumseh, and LaSalle. The City and WUC / ENWIN will be collectively referred to as the “Respondents.” The location at the heart of this matter is municipally known as 2300 Tecumseh Road East in the City (“Subject Property”).

2The Claimant claims damages for injurious affection, representing past, present and future income losses arising from municipal infrastructure construction works undertaken by the Respondents further to two Windsor Utilities Commission Contracts, namely WUC Contract #2024-001 - Turner/Tecumseh/Factoria/Milloy and 2025 WUC Contract 2024-001 CCFM 2025 restart.pdf. The Claimant states that, after construction work was initiated on or about May 28, 2024, the negative impact on it and its business was immediate, significant, and serious. Furthermore, there was no prior consultation initiated by the Respondents regarding potential steps to mitigate the impact on it in connection to construction associated with said contracts.

3The Parties have filed pleadings in this matter and an in-person mediation took place on October 9, 2025.

RELIEF REQUESTED AND MATERIALS FILED IN THE MOTION

4The Claimant brought this motion in writing seeking that the Tribunal make an Order:

a. Compelling the Respondents to produce the following documents:

i. A finalized list of detailed activities including closures / openings / accesses during the construction period with associated documents.

ii. All environmental, traffic, or noise impact studies relied upon in the planning or implementation of the project.

iii. Any consultant reports assessing potential impacts on adjacent properties, including but not limited to access or business impacts.

iv. Any correspondence, memoranda, or meeting minutes between the Respondents and their consultants or contractors referring to the Claimant’s property or its operations.

v. Any appraisals or valuation reports prepared for the Respondents relating to the Claimant’s lands or to claims for injurious affection in connection with this project.

vi. All correspondence and documents exchanged between the General Contractor and Respondents between June 1, 2023 to date with respect to the two contracts in issue.

vii. Minutes and records of all meetings related to the two contracts in issue, including in camara meetings, between ENWIN, WUC, and the City.

viii. All Respondents’ Traffic studies for the years 2023, 2024, and 2025 by month in reference to the intersection of Walker Road and Tecumseh Road East.

ix. All records of public complaints arising from the construction in issue between March 2024 and August 31, 2025.

x. Any and all economic impact studies commissioned or obtained by the Respondents in reference to the construction works at and around the intersection of Walker and Tecumseh Road East.

b. Setting a timeline for production and delivery, and requesting the following specifications:

i. The Respondents produce the documents within 10 days of the Tribunal’s Order.

ii. The Respondents may produce the documents electronically in searchable PDF or native format, together with an index identifying each document by title and date.

iii. The Respondents may withhold any document properly subject to solicitor-client privilege or settlement privilege but shall provide a privilege log identifying the document, date, author, and basis for the claim of privilege.

c. That a date be set to hear cost submissions arising from this Motion; and

d. That the Claimant’s Statement of Claim be amended, in accordance with Schedule “A” to this Decision.

5The materials filed for the Motion are:

a. The Claimant’s Motion Record, comprised of: a Notice of Motion dated November 6, 2025; an Affidavit sworn by Sonia Blasetig on November 6, 2025; and a Draft Order.

b. The Respondents’ Motion Record, comprised of a Response to Motion dated March 2, 2026.

6Of note, only the City filed a Response to the Motion, and it served this response on WUC / ENWIN. However, since the City controls the other entities, the Tribunal will treat them as a collective unit, with the City’s comments being applicable to WUC / ENWIN.

RULE 9 PRODUCTIONS ORDER

Claimant

7The Claimant brought forth this Motion seeking an Order pursuant to Rule 9 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rule”), which states:

RULE 9

DISCOVERY

9.1 Order for Discovery The Tribunal may make an order for discovery for a party to obtain necessary information from another party. Such an order will be made only on motion and only if the party has requested information and it has been refused or no answer has been received. The notice of motion shall be accompanied by an affidavit, which sets out the efforts made to obtain the desired information and the reasons that demonstrate that the information sought is both necessary and relevant to the disposition of the issues in the proceeding. The Tribunal may order:

a. any person to provide an affidavit containing a list of relevant documents in the possession of the person;

b. the delivery of relevant documents;

c. an examination or cross-examination of any person or party;

d. an examination for discovery by written questions;

e. the inspection and testing of property;

f. the examination of a witness before the commencement of a proceeding (under the Rules of Civil Procedure);

g. any other form of discovery; and

h. that conditions be imposed concerning the timing and scope of discovery.

9.2 Rules of Civil Procedure Apply to Proceedings Following Order for Discovery If an order for discovery is obtained, then any production obligations continue to apply in the course of the proceeding with respect to the production of materials and documents subsequently obtained.

[Emphasis through bolding added by Tribunal.]

8In support of its request, the Claimant submitted that: the required documents are in the exclusive possession of the Respondents; this material is relevant and necessary to the Claimant’s ability to bring forward its claim; and despite repeated requests, the Respondents have failed to produce the relevant records. As such, the Claimant has and continues to be prejudiced. Specifically, the Claimant argued as follows:

Exclusive Possession

a. The requested documents are only in the control of the Respondents, with the City specifying that they are in the possession of WUC / ENWIN.

Relevant and Necessary

b. The requested documents are relevant and necessary to support the Claimant’s claim for injurious affection under sections 1(1)(b) and 21 of the Act, and specifically to address the issues of causation and financial loss connected to the construction work undertaken by the Respondents. Production of these documents is necessary to ensure a fair and efficient hearing of the compensation claim.

Failure to Produce Documents Despite Numerous Requests

c. In her sworn Affidavit, Ms. Blasetig, the Claimant Counsel’s legal assistant, explains that requests for these documents were first delivered on November 6, 2024, but remain unsatisfied. Following a Case Management Conference in May 2025, the Respondents gave an undertaking on May 14, 2025 to provide a detailed list of construction activities between May 28, 2024 and August 15, 2025, but have yet to fulfil that undertaking. A further detailed request for documents was delivered on September 9, 2025, followed by additional correspondence on October 7 and October 31, 2025, but the Respondents have not produced the documents. Ms. Blasetig further states that during an in-person mediation on October 9, 2025, the Respondents provided only a chart listing access closures at the Subject Property, without any supporting documents or information identifying the author of the chart.

Prejudice

d. The Claimant submitted that, without access to these documents, its ability to properly prepare its case on important issues such as causation is impaired. Thus, the Claimant is unfairly prejudiced. The Respondents have already prejudiced the Claimants by not producing relevant documents. For example, WUC / ENWIN failed to provide mediation materials before the scheduled in-person mediation on October 9, 2025, which caused the mediation to be adjourned and resulted in unnecessary costs to the Claimant. The Respondents’ delays to date, and a failure to meet their production obligations and respond to requests, have been unreasonable and unjustified. Moreover, the requested Order is necessary to ensure a fair and efficient hearing on the merits of the Claimant’s compensation claim.

Respondents

9The Respondents submit that they do not object to the production of documents in the usual course, but a Rule 9 Order for productions is premature. They rely on Rule 26.28 of the Rules, which states:

26.28 Examinations for Discovery No Tribunal order is required for examinations for discovery or documents. Appraisal reports to be relied upon by either party shall be served at least 15 days prior to examinations for discovery, unless the Tribunal orders otherwise. The Rules of Civil Procedure apply to examinations for discovery.

[Emphasis through bolding added by Tribunal.]

10They argue that the Tribunal’s Rules indicate that the Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rules of CP”) apply to discovery, and under the Rules of CP, the Parties would normally first agree on a discovery plan and exchange Affidavits of Documents as part of the standard discovery process. Neither of those steps have occurred yet. The Respondents submit that the documents requested by the Claimant would duplicate what would normally be addressed during discovery, and therefore a Rule 9 production Order should not be made at this stage. Moreover, Rule 26.28 indicates that no Tribunal Order is required for documents. As a result, the City asks that the Motion be dismissed with costs. Alternatively, if the Tribunal orders production, the City requests that the Respondents be given at least 30 days from the date of the order to produce the documents.

Analysis and Findings

11The Tribunal is persuaded by the Claimant’s submissions and satisfied that the requirements of Rule 9 of the Rules are met. The Claimant has established that it has requested this information numerous times and did not receive an answer. The Claimant also demonstrated that the information sought is both necessary and relevant to the disposition of the issues. Notably, the Respondents did not object to or dispute either of these points. The Respondents simply indicated that such an Order was premature and these documents should be provided in the normal course of discovery. However, this claim was commenced on August 29, 2024, and the Claimant has been seeking these documents for 1.5 years, since November 2024. To date, they have not been provided. In fact, even the mediation was impacted by this lack of information to the point that it had to be adjourned. Thus, the Tribunal finds it appropriate to make an Order for the delivery of the documents, to prevent further delays in this matter, as well as further prejudice to the Claimant.

12With respect to the Respondents’ submission that the documents requested by the Claimant would duplicate what would normally be addressed during discovery, the Tribunal disagrees. The Respondents already indicated that they did not object to the production of these documents in the usual course. If they are produced at this stage, there is no need to re-produce them again later, and the Respondents have the option to rely on this production as having satisfied this portion of the discovery requirements. Additionally, this Order is made pursuant to Rule 9. A discovery plan and exchange of Affidavits of Documents are not pre-requisites to a Rule 9 Order being made. The requirements are identified above at paragraph (7) of this Decision, and the Claimant has met those requirements. Lastly, with respect to the Respondents’ position regarding Rule 28.26 of the Rules, the Tribunal finds that, while no Order is required for productions, this does not mean that no Order can be made for productions. This Rule simply allows production of records to take place without requiring an Order from the Tribunal first. It does not prevent a Party from seeking such an Order. If it did, this would clearly contradict Rule 9, and that was indeed not the intention behind these Rules.

13With respect to the timing for production, the Tribunal agrees with the Respondents’ timeline of 30 days. Since the documents are in the exclusive control of the Respondents, the Tribunal finds it appropriate to defer to the Respondents’ request on the timeline. More importantly, 30 days is not significantly different from the Claimant’s proposed 10 days, and will not cause noteworthy delay or prejudice.

AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM

14The Claimant also sought an Order that the Statement of Claim be amended, in accordance with Schedule “A” to this Decision. The basis for this request was that the original claim was issued in August 2024 during month 3 of construction arising from WUC Contract #2024-001 - Turner/Tecumseh/ Factoria /Milloy. Construction continued through the balance of 2024 and into 2025 when work was “re-continued” at the same location. This resulted in a second construction contract insisted upon by the City Respondent: 2025 WUC Contract 2024-001 CCFM 2025 restart.pdf. Damages could not be assessed and the claim not amended until after the project was completed on August 15, 2025, at which time an economic loss report could be prepared.

15The Respondents did not comment on this.

16The Tribunal, upon review of the original and amended Statement of Claim, is persuaded by the Claimant, finding that this request is appropriate and the amended Statement of Claim is approved.

ORDER

17THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

a. Motor City Chrysler Limited’s (“Claimant”) motion seeking an Order for the production of documents is granted and the Corporation of the City of Windsor, Windsor Utilities Commission and ENWIN Utilities Ltd. (“Respondents”) shall produce and serve upon the Claimant within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, the following documents and materials in its possession, power, or control: in reference to WUC Contract #2024-001 - Turner/Tecumseh/ Factoria /Milloy” and 2025 WUC Contract 2024-001 CCFM 2025 restart.pdf:

i. A finalized list of detailed activities including closures / openings / accesses during the construction period with associated documents;

ii. All environmental, traffic, or noise impact studies relied upon in the planning or implementation of the project;

iii. Any consultant reports assessing potential impacts on adjacent properties, including but not limited to access or business impacts;

iv. Any correspondence, memoranda, or meeting minutes between the Respondents and their consultants or contractors referring to the Claimant’s property or its operations;

v. Any appraisals or valuation reports prepared for the Respondents relating to the Claimant’s lands or to claims for injurious affection in connection with this project;

vi. All correspondence and documents exchanged between the General Contractor and Respondents between June 1, 2023 to date with respect to the two contracts in issue;

vii. Minutes and records of all meetings related to the two contracts in issue, including in camera meetings, between ENWIN, WUC, and City of Windsor;

viii. All Traffic studies for the years 2023, 2024, and 2025 by month in reference to the intersection of Walker Road and Tecumseh Road East;

ix. All records of public complaints arising from the construction in issue between March 2024 and August 31, 2025; and

x. Any and all economic impact studies commissioned or obtained by the Respondents in reference to the construction works at and around the intersection of Walker and Tecumseh Road East.

b. The Respondents may produce the documents electronically in searchable PDF or native format, together with an index identifying each document by title and date.

c. The Respondents may withhold any document properly subject to solicitor-client privilege or settlement privilege but shall provide a privilege log identifying the document, date, author, and basis for the claim of privilege.

d. Pursuant to Rule 9.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, any production obligations continue to apply in the course of the proceeding with respect to the production of materials and documents subsequently obtained.

18THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER ORDERS THAT:

a. The Claimant’s motion to amend its Statement of Claim is granted and the Claimant’s Statement of Claim is amended in accordance with Schedule “A” of this Decision.

19The costs of this Motion shall be deferred for determination by the Tribunal following the hearing of this proceeding or subsequent to a final, agreed settlement reached by the Parties on a motion brought pursuant to Rule 26.19.

“Bita M. Rajaee”

BITA M. RAJAEE

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.