Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CV-25-0332-00 Date: 2025-08-25

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

HYDRO ONE NETWORKS INC.

A. Schechner and W. Dandie, for the Applicant

Applicant

- and -

JOANNE MICHELE DREW, TADEUSZ PATRIC JEDRUCH, JULIAN ROSU, RICHARD BOUDREAU, LOUISE NICZIK, JAMES THOMAS WITZELL, GORDON WALTER BOYES, CHERYL ELIZABETH BOYES SIMONS, BROOKE ROBINSON, SUSAN CAROL BOYES, DEBORAH ELLEN HOLYFIELD, NANCY CHARLENE BLACK, ALLAN CHARLES BOYES and BROOKE ASHLEY ROBINSON

Richard Boudreau appearing for self; No other respondent appearing

Respondent

HEARD: August 22, 2025, at Thunder Bay, Ontario

Regional Senior Justice W. D. Newton

Decision On Motion

Overview

[1] The Applicant, Hydro One Networks Inc. ("Hydro One") applies for orders:

a. Adjusting the dates of possession in certain Notices of Possession pursuant to s. 39(3) of the Expropriations Act (the "Act");

b. Allowing the application to proceed in the absence of a representative of the estate of the Respondent, James Thomas Witzell; and

c. Dispensing with service of this application on the estate of James Thomas Witzell and Susan Carol Boyes.

[2] With respect to service upon Susan Carol Boyes, I am satisfied that she has notice of the proceeding, does not oppose, and, given her personal circumstances, it is appropriate to dispense with service.

[3] Similarly, as there is no representative of the estate of James Thomas Witzell, who died intestate on or about October 15, 2015, and as it appears that no surviving potential beneficiary seeks to be involved in the estate, an order dispensing with service and allowing the application to proceed in the absence of a person representing the estate is appropriate.

[4] Of the remaining Respondents, only four have not entered into agreements with Hydro One.

[5] Three, Joanne Michele Drew, Tadeusz Patric Jedruch, and Julian Rosu have not responded or appeared, despite waiting fifteen minutes as required by r. 3.03(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. One, Richard Boudreau, advised that he was opposed and did appear. No Respondent has filed any responding material on this application.

The Facts

[6] On June 10, 2025, the Ontario Energy Board authorised Hydro One to expropriate easements on certain land parcels required to construct the Waasigan Transmission Line Project (the "Project").

[7] The Project involves the construction of 360 km of electricity transmission lines and the modification of associated facilities in Northwestern Ontario. The Project will supply an additional 350 MW electricity to the region, create approximately 400 jobs during construction, and be owned and operated in partnership with First Nations communities.

[8] The Project has been determined to be in the public interest by the provincial government in its Long-term Energy Plans and the Ontario Energy Board.

[9] Hydro One entered into voluntary agreements to acquire land rights from almost all the owners of 154 properties along the transmission corridor. Hydro One applied to expropriate land for the transmission corridor where there was no agreement with the landowner.

[10] The expropriation decision found that the expropriation was in the public interest, that the lands in question were necessary for construction of the Project, and that the land expropriated was the minimum amount of land required for the Project.

[11] As required under the Act, Hydro One served Notices of Possession to the landowners on July 23, 2025. Section 39(2) of the Act requires that the notice period be at least three months. The notice period would therefore expire on October 24, 2025.

[12] Construction is scheduled to begin on October 1, 2025, and the affidavit evidence sets out that it is necessary to obtain access to the lands by September 22, 2025, so that site preparation work can be completed prior to construction. Such preconstruction work entails construction staking/surveying, species at risk sweeps, construction fence installation, and other preconstruction activities. This preconstruction work requires a minimum of eight (8) full days to complete before construction can start.

Positions of the Parties

[13] Hydro One seeks abbreviation of the notice period by 32 days so that construction can begin on time.

[14] Although Mr. Boudreau did not file an appearance or any evidence on this application, I heard his oral submissions opposing the abbreviation of the notice period. He advised that he had not settled his claim for compensation with Hydro One for the expropriation and he hoped that a delay may be an "incentive" for negotiations. He was aware that a decision to abbreviate the notice period did not affect his right to compensation. He was unable to describe what prejudice he would suffer if the notice period was abbreviated by 32 days.

The Law

[15] The Act provides:

Possession of expropriated land

39 (1) Where land that has been expropriated is vested in an expropriating authority and the expropriating authority has served the registered owner with a notice that it requires possession of the land on the date specified therein, the expropriating authority, subject to any agreement to the contrary and if no application is made under subsection (3), shall take possession of the land on the date specified in the notice.

Date for possession

(2) Subject to subsection (3), the date for possession shall be at least three months after the date of the serving of the notice of possession.

Application for adjustment of date of possession

(3) A registered owner or an expropriating authority may, upon such notice as the judge may direct, apply to a judge for an adjustment of the date for possession specified in the notice of possession, and the judge, if he or she considers that under all the circumstances the application should be granted, may order that the date for possession shall be on such earlier or later date as the judge may specify in the order. [Emphasis added.]

[16] There are two primary considerations that a Court must balance in deciding whether to adjust the date for possession:

a. Whether it is in the public interest to adjust the date of possession; and

b. Whether adjusting the date of possession will prejudice private landowners.

[17] These considerations address the purpose of the Act which is "to balance the interests of the property owner against the public interest in the work that the expropriation would advance".

[18] As was recently stated by the Alberta Court of Appeal in dealing with a similar provision in Alberta's expropriation legislation in Selenium Creative Ltd. v. Edmonton (City), this discretion to vary the date for possession "requires the decision maker to consider all the various relevant facts, factors and interests at play in a particular case".

Analysis and Disposition

[19] It is appropriate to grant the relief sought by Hydro One.

[20] I have considered all facts and interests "at play". Adjustment of the date of possession is in the public interest so that the Project can begin on time. There is no demonstrated prejudice to Mr. Boudreau or any other landowner.

[21] The Notice of Possession is abbreviated to September 22, 2025, from October 24, 2025.

[22] The draft order at Case Center A639 shall issue. No costs are sought or ordered.

The Hon. Mr. Justice W. D. Newton, R.S.J.

Released: August 25, 2025