CITATION: Blandford Square Developments Limited v. Oxford (County), 2007 ONCA 298
DATE: 20070420
DOCKET: C45253 and C45255
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
GOUDGE, BLAIR AND LAFORME JJ.A.
B E T W E E N :
C45253
BLANDFORD SQUARE DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED
Peter J. Lukasiewicz for the appellant Vincorp Financial Ltd.
Plaintiff (Appellant)
Barry S. Wortzman, Q.C. and Sandra E. Dawe for the appellant Blandford Square
- and -
THE CORPORATION OF THE COUNTY OF OXFORD and THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF WOODSTOCK
Steven Stieber Murray Stieber and Gabrielle K. Kramer for the respondents
Defendants (Respondents)
A N D B E T W E E N:
C45255
VINCORP FINANCIAL LTD.
Plaintiff (Appellant)
- and -
THE CORPORATION OF THE COUNTY OF OXFORD and THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF WOODSTOCK
Defendants (Respondents)
Heard: January 15, 2007
On appeal from the order of Justice Colin L. Campbell of the Superior Court of Justice, dated March 24, 2006, with reasons reported at (2006), 20 M.P.L.R. (4th) 27.
GOUDGE J.A.:
[1] The appellant Blandford Square Developments Limited (“Blandford”) owns certain shopping mall lands in Woodstock, Ontario. The appellant Vincorp Financial Ltd. holds a $9 million mortgage on those lands. The respondent Corporation of the County of Oxford (“Oxford”) wants to expropriate the mall lands and has passed certain by-laws seeking to effect this. Oxford has contracted to then sell the mall lands to Toyota Canada at the expropriation price it paid to Blandford, as part of the land assembly required for the building of a large new Toyota plant in Woodstock.
[2] The appellants have sued Oxford for a declaration that it does not have the statutory authority or jurisdiction to expropriate in these circumstances. They also seek substantial damages for breach of statutory authority, unlawful interference with economic interest, and conspiracy to unlawfully expropriate.
[3] This appeal results from three motions heard together, one by each appellant and one by Oxford. A number of different orders were sought in each motion. All were dismissed, save for Oxford’s request for summary judgment, which was granted in part, dismissing the appellants’ claim to set aside the expropriation as “per se” unlawful or without jurisdiction. The appellants appeal this partial granting of summary judgment.
[4] For the reasons that follow, I would allow the appeal and dismiss the entirety of Oxford’s motion for summary judgment.
THE FACTS
[5] The respondent Corporation of the City of Woodstock (“Woodstock”) is an incorporated municipality that lies within the boundaries of Oxford. As between the two respondents, Oxford is an “upper-tier” municipality under the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, and is the appropriate expropriating authority for the purposes of the Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.26.
[6] In February 2005, Oxford commenced the assembly of a parcel of 1,000 acres of land in Woodstock to provide for the development of a new Toyota plant. The parcel was made up of 28 properties, one of which was the mall lands comprising approximately 91.52 acres.
[7] Oxford acquired 27 of the 28 properties by way of negotiation. However, it was unable to come to terms with Blandford, and therefore took steps to expropriate the mall lands.
[8] The first step was that on May 11, 2005, Oxford passed By-law 4545-2005 granting it authority to make application for approval to expropriate the mall lands.
[9] On June 30, 2005, Toyota announced publicly that the Woodstock location had been selected for its new plant. The same day, Oxford requested the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to exercise his authority to issue a Minister’s Zoning Order changing the zoning of all the lands in the parcel to permit industrial uses.
[10] On July 21, 2005, Oxford entered into an agreement with Toyota providing that Oxford will transfer the mall lands in return for the same amount that Oxford has to pay to acquire them.
[11] On August 17, 2005, pursuant to s. 47(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, the Minister issued a Minister’s Zoning Order changing the zoning of