2 total
Transfer of expropriated land for economic development did not confer an unlawful municipal bonus.
Two related actions challenged a municipality’s expropriation of commercial land that formed part of a 1,000‑acre assembly for a vehicle manufacturing plant.
The plaintiffs argued that the municipality unlawfully expropriated the property and conferred an illegal “bonus” on a private manufacturer by transferring the land at the expropriation price rather than its alleged fair market value, contrary to s. 106 of the Municipal Act, 2001.
The court held that the municipality had lawful authority to expropriate the land for valid public purposes related to economic development.
Applying the contextual approach to s. 106 adopted in Friends of Lansdowne Inc. v. Ottawa (City), the court concluded that the transaction did not confer an “obviously undue advantage” on the private enterprise.
Accordingly, the expropriation and subsequent transfer did not breach the statutory prohibition on municipal bonuses.
Appeal dismissed; failure to disclose corporate name on contracts did not automatically result in personal liability.
The appellants appealed a trial decision dismissing their claim for personal liability against the individual respondent, Stewart.
The claim arose from home renovation contracts signed under the business name 'Renoclub', which failed to disclose the underlying numbered corporation in breach of the Business Corporations Act and Business Names Act.
The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's finding that such breaches do not automatically result in personal liability, and that the evidence established the appellants knew they were dealing with a corporation rather than Stewart personally.
The appeal was dismissed.
