Paul R. Henry

The respondent school board expropriated the appellant's property to build a new secondary school.

The board later authorized a land swap with the city to facilitate a joint development on the site.

The appellant argued this triggered section 41(1) of the Expropriations Act, requiring the board to offer the property back because it was no longer needed for the board's purposes.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the substantive appeal, finding the board had not abandoned its purpose of building a school and related amenities.

However, the court allowed the costs appeal, reducing the application judge's costs award to the partial indemnity amount originally sought by the board.

The applicant sought to compel the respondent school board to comply with s. 41(1) of the Expropriations Act after expropriated lands intended for a school were proposed to be conveyed to a municipality for a recreation facility and seniors’ centre use integrated with the school project.

The applicant argued that once the land was no longer needed for the original expropriation purpose, the respondent was required to provide notice and an election to reacquire the property.

The court held that the board had not abandoned the lands and that the proposed recreational and related facilities fell within the stated purpose of operating a school and related amenities, particularly given the broad provisions of the Education Act.

The application, including the request for temporary injunctive relief, was dismissed, and the respondent was awarded costs.

The appellant sought costs as the successful party on appeal, while the respondents sought costs relying on s. 32(1) of the Expropriations Act.

The Court of Appeal held that s. 32(1) applies to the Ontario Municipal Board, not the court, and is triggered only when the Board has made an order awarding at least 85% of the offered amount.

Since the Board's order was set aside, s. 32(1) did not apply at this stage.

The appellant was awarded partial indemnity costs of $108,000 for the Divisional Court appeal and $45,000 for the Court of Appeal proceedings.

However, the court directed that the costs are not payable until the matter is finally resolved by the Board.

The City of Windsor appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) award for the expropriation of the respondents' lands.

The OMB had determined the market value of the expropriated lands and awarded injurious affection damages for the remaining lands based on an expropriation scheme dating back to 1983.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the OMB unreasonably failed to consider the negative impact of the 1996 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) on the lands' market value, as the PPS was not part of the expropriation scheme.

Furthermore, the OMB erred in law by assessing injurious affection damages based on the entire expropriation scheme rather than limiting them to the diminution in value caused specifically by the City's acquisition of the lands.

A new hearing was ordered.

The City of Windsor appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision awarding compensation to landowners for expropriated property.

The City argued the Board erred by ignoring the land's natural features and provincial policy statements when determining market value, and by improperly assessing injurious affection and interest.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusions on the scope of the expropriation scheme, the highest and best use of the land, and the appropriate comparators were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the City of Toronto appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision awarding the respondents $1,859,999 for injurious affection to their remaining lands following an expropriation.

The appellants argued that a previously granted parkland dedication credit settled the claim, should be set off against the damages, or that the Board erred in calculating the lost development units.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable.

The court held that the parkland credit related to the expropriated land, while the injurious affection claim related to the loss of opportunity to build townhouses on the remaining land, meaning there was no double recovery.

Following an appeal regarding compensation for expropriated properties, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The court found that success was equally divided between the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and the claimants, resulting in no costs awarded for that portion of the appeal.

However, the City of Toronto was substantially successful on the most time-consuming and financially significant issues against the claimants.

The court awarded the City costs fixed at $120,000.

The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the City of Toronto appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision awarding compensation to the respondents for the expropriation of their waterfront properties.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's assessment of market value, injurious affection, and loss of riparian rights, finding the Board's conclusions reasonable and supported by expert evidence.

However, the Court allowed the appeals regarding disturbance damages, setting aside a $4,000,000 award for delay and a $1,850,000 award for loss of a parkland dedication credit.

The Court found that the respondents, who were not active developers, did not suffer a compensable business disturbance from the delay, and that the parkland credit award constituted double recovery and was speculative.

The appellants brought a motion for leave to file facta in excess of the 30-page limit prescribed by the Practice Direction under Rule 61, seeking a maximum of 160 pages each, and for an order fixing the assigned times for oral submissions.

The court found that while some latitude was required, the case essentially involved a battle of experts on damages with no liability issues.

The court granted leave to file facta up to 55 pages.

The request to set time limits for oral argument was dismissed as premature.

The City of Toronto appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision awarding a doctor $81,850 for injurious affection caused by subway construction near his leased offices.

The doctor cross-appealed the quantum of damages, arguing the Board erred in reducing damages by 50%.

The Divisional Court dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding no error in principle in the Board's assessment of reasonableness or damages.

The appellant doctor performed cosmetic surgery on the respondent's eyelid.

The respondent suffered complications and required revisionary surgeries.

She sued for negligence based on a lack of informed consent.

The trial judge found that a reasonable person in the respondent's position, if informed of the material risks, would not have proceeded with the surgery at that time due to her financial situation and career plans.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the doctor's appeal, holding that the trial judge correctly applied the modified objective test for causation from Reibl v. Hughes, properly considering the respondent's special circumstances.

The appellant solicitor was called to a hospital to prepare a deathbed will for a terminally ill patient.

After interviewing the patient, who drifted in and out of consciousness, the solicitor concluded the patient lacked testamentary capacity and declined to prepare the will.

The patient died intestate.

A prospective beneficiary sued the solicitor for negligence and succeeded at trial.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the solicitor's duty was to ascertain testamentary capacity.

Finding the patient lacked capacity, the solicitor properly declined the retainer.

In the absence of a retainer, the solicitor owed no duty of care to the prospective beneficiary.

The plaintiffs, Ontario residents, were injured during a shore excursion in Grenada while on a Caribbean cruise.

They sued the Canadian tour operator, the American cruise line, and the Grenadian excursion provider and driver in Ontario.

The Grenadian defendants brought a motion to stay the action against them on the basis that Ontario lacked jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal applied the real and substantial connection test and held that Ontario courts could not assume jurisdiction over the Grenadian defendants, as they had no connection to Ontario and it would be unfair to require them to litigate there.

The appellants appealed an order of the Divisional Court that set aside an award of disturbance damages made by the Ontario Municipal Board in respect of land expropriated by the Ministry of Transportation.

The Divisional Court had concluded that an intention to sell the land was essential to awarding disturbance damages for delay.

The Court of Appeal found that the Divisional Court misapprehended the Board's reasoning, holding that the Board was entitled in law to award disturbance damages for the 38-month freeze period prior to expropriation, as the delay imposed an unreasonable disturbance.

The appeal was allowed and the Board's award of $71,959.00 for disturbance damages was restored.

The plaintiffs, Ontario residents, purchased a package holiday that included a cruise and a shore excursion in Grenada.

During the excursion, the plaintiff suffered carbon monoxide poisoning in a vehicle operated by the Grenadian defendants.

The plaintiffs sued the tour operators and the Grenadian defendants in Ontario.

The Grenadian defendants moved to stay the proceedings, arguing Ontario lacked jurisdiction simpliciter and was not the convenient forum.

The motions judge dismissed the motion.

On appeal, the Divisional Court upheld the decision, finding a real and substantial connection between Ontario and the subject matter of the action, and that Ontario was the most convenient forum.

The plaintiffs sued the defendants for injuries sustained during a shore excursion in Grenada.

The defendants, residents of Grenada, were served ex juris and brought a motion to set aside service and stay the claims, which was dismissed.

The defendants sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court.

The court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's decision because he failed to distinguish between the tests for jurisdiction simpliciter and forum non conveniens, and there were conflicting decisions on whether a plaintiff's residence and ongoing damages in Ontario are sufficient to establish a real and substantial connection.