Nyon Oil Inc. v. Hydro One Networks Inc., 2025 ONSC 1921

Court File No.: CV-24-14768
Date: 2025-03-27
Court: Superior Court of Justice – Ontario

Plaintiffs: Nyon Oil Inc. and 1170367 Ontario Inc.
Defendant: Hydro One Networks Inc.

Before: J.A. Ramsay
Counsel:

• For the defendant, moving: Aya Schechner and Sam Rogers
• For the plaintiffs, responding: Frank Portman, Scott Lemke, and Alexa Cheung

Heard: 2025-03-27, at Welland by videoconference

Endorsement

Background

[1] In 2015 the plaintiffs became the registered owner of a piece of land in Port Colborne on which the defendant has been operating an electricity transmission system. The plaintiffs are suing, among other things, for:

a. damages representing unpaid rent for 2015 to 2024;
b. ongoing monthly rent;
c. a declaration that the plaintiffs own the hydroelectric infrastructure situate on the land;
d. a declaration that Hydro One does not have the right to operate the transmission infrastructure;
e. a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from trespassing on the land for the purpose of operating hydroelectric equipment;
f. remediation of environmental damage.

[2] After the action was instituted, the defendant brought an application to the Ontario Energy Board to expropriate land rights sufficient to operate and maintain the transmission infrastructure. The Board’s procedure includes notice to the plaintiff and the opportunity to participate. The defendant now moves for a temporary stay of the action.

Legal Framework

[3] Section 106 of the Courts of Justice Act gives the court the power to stay any proceeding on such terms as are considered just. In the exercise of this discretionary power the court considers certain factors.

[4] These factors include:

a. the legal and factual overlap between the two proceedings;
b. differences in the remedial jurisdiction as between the two proceedings;
c. the comparative progress of the two proceedings;
d. the impact of granting or not granting a stay on the parties;
e. whether a temporary stay will prevent inefficient use of judicial and legal resources: Halton v. CNR, 2018 ONSC 6095, Hollinger International Inc. v. Hollinger.

[5] The list is not exhaustive. The threshold for staying a proceeding is meant to be high. It has been held that the power to stay should only be used sparingly and in the clearest of cases where refusing a stay would work an injustice: Northfield Capital Corporation v. Aurelian Resources Inc..

Procedural Status

[6] The statement of claim was filed in April 2024. The statement of defence was filed in May 2024. It is not clear whether pleadings are closed. Disclosure has begun. The application before the Ontario Energy Board was made in December 2024 and amended in February 2024. Both proceedings are at an early stage.

Jurisdictional Issues

[7] The parties do not agree on the extent of the Board’s exclusivity of jurisdiction. It does not matter. It is not necessarily a question of this court lacking jurisdiction. The defendant is only asking the court to wait before exercising its jurisdiction.

Overlap and Distinctions Between Proceedings

[8] The two cases have the same factual background. There is not a complete overlap in the issues. The issues within the Board’s jurisdiction essentially look forward. It has exclusive jurisdiction to decide whether expropriation is in the public interest. If so, there is a mechanism for determining compensation. It has no jurisdiction to decide whether Hydro One’s past operation of the transmission equipment was unlawful. This court’s jurisdiction essentially looks backward. Under what terms did the plaintiff acquire the property? What exactly does it own? How much rent is due, if any? However, the Board will have to consider the ownership of the land and the transmission equipment, and the court’s decision could have an impact on future use of the land. This factor seems to weigh equally in the balance between a stay and refusal of a stay.

[9] The only live issues that will be left if the application is before the Board is successful are back rent and environmental damage. If the application is not successful, the Board will have made findings of fact which will shorten the action. That is a factor in favour of a stay.

Public Interest and Judicial Economy

[10] To me, the weightiest consideration is that whether Hydro One has the right to continue to operate the transmission system is in the exclusive jurisdiction of the Board. An injunction could threaten the electricity supply. As well as exclusive jurisdiction, only the Board has the expertise and the knowledge of the provincial system to decide whether Hydro One should continue to operate on this piece of land. The court should as a matter of common sense abstain from exercising its own jurisdiction until the Board has decided that basic question.

[11] In the particular circumstances of this case, it makes sense to allow the application before the Board to go first. If the action proceeds first, or concurrently, there is a risk of inconsistent findings and, importantly, a risk to the public interest in the transmission of electricity. A temporary stay would deprive the plaintiff of a tactical advantage but would not work an injustice. It might delay an award of damages, but that can be compensated by pre-judgement interest.

Disposition

[12] I stay the action for one year. If that is not enough time, the question may be reconsidered on a motion to renew it.

[13] The defendant was successful, but I have deprived the plaintiff of its prima facie right to pursue the action in its own times. Costs of this motion should await the outcome of the action. Costs are fixed at $20,000 and reserved to the trial judge.

J.A. Ramsay
Date: 2025-03-27