Sean G. Foran

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent to govern the conduct of a five-week hearing regarding a claim for compensation under the Expropriations Act.

The order establishes deadlines for documentary discovery, witness statements, expert reports, and other pre-hearing steps leading up to the hearing scheduled to commence on April 6, 2027.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding a claim for compensation under the Expropriations Act.

The Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent, establishing the timetable for documentary discovery, mediation, examinations for discovery, and the exchange of expert reports leading up to an eight-day video hearing scheduled to commence on February 1, 2027.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an expropriation compensation claim by the claimant against the respondent for lands acquired for the Ontario Line subway system.

The Tribunal scheduled a 15-day video hearing to commence on May 31, 2027, and issued a Procedural Order governing the pre-hearing steps, including document exchange, mediation, discoveries, and expert witness meetings.

The parties requested an amendment to the procedural order governing the schedule for a compensation claim under the Expropriations Act.

The Ontario Land Tribunal granted the request on consent and issued an amended procedural order setting out the timetable for pleadings, discoveries, mediation, and the hearing.

Following a decision ordering a rehearing on compensation for an expropriated property, the Tribunal held a case management conference to determine the scope of the rehearing.

The claimants argued that the rehearing should include the issue of highest and best use, while the respondent city argued the Tribunal was functus officio on that issue.

The Tribunal rejected the city's argument, finding that it retained broad discretionary authority under the Ontario Land Tribunal Act and its Rules to conduct a full or partial rehearing.

The Tribunal ordered that the rehearing include written and oral evidence concerning the highest and best use of the subject property to ensure a fair, just, and expeditious resolution.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference regarding a claim for compensation under the Expropriations Act following a partial fee simple taking and temporary limited interest by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo.

The Tribunal issued a procedural order scheduling a 15-day video hearing to commence on November 23, 2026, and set out the procedural requirements leading up to the hearing.

The claimant sought $382,263.54 in legal, appraisal, and planning costs under section 32 of the Expropriations Act following a settlement for the partial expropriation of her property.

The respondent disputed portions of the costs, particularly legal fees for tax advice related to the claimant's non-resident status, arguing they were unrelated to determining compensation.

The Tribunal applied the principle of full indemnification but found only a portion of the tax advice costs were reasonably related to the compensation claim.

The Tribunal awarded $354,875.60 in costs, deferring the issue of interest pending a Divisional Court appeal in a separate matter.

The court awarded the Applicants partial indemnity costs in the amount of $88,743.94 after finding that the Respondent developer was not entitled to charge certain adjustment amounts on closing under the agreements of purchase and sale.

The court found the Developer's conduct increased costs but did not rise to the level warranting substantial indemnity.

The decision reviews the appropriate scale and quantum of costs, referencing the Developer's failure to provide information and the resulting bifurcation of the proceeding.

The applicants, purchasers of units in a townhouse complex, sought a declaration that the developer was not entitled to charge them certain adjustment amounts on closing under their agreements of purchase and sale.

The court found that the developer was not entitled to pass on utility infrastructure costs paid to contractors, trades, and other third parties, but only those paid to the municipality or utility service providers, and for meter installation.

The court also found the developer was not entitled to charge $800 for an extension of the closing date.

The application was granted, and a reference on damages was directed.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent following a telephone conference call.

The order establishes the procedural steps and timetable leading up to a five-day hearing scheduled for June 2026 to determine the claimant's compensation for disturbance damages arising from the expropriation of its land by the City of Hamilton.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to set aside an administrative dismissal and a motion for contempt against Susan Stevens for breaching court orders related to the disposition of a recreational vehicle (RV) subject to a Mareva injunction.

The court found that the orders were clear and unequivocal, that Ms. Stevens had actual knowledge of them, and that she intentionally breached them by selling the RV.

The court found Ms. Stevens in contempt, ordered her to provide documentation and pay over the proceeds, and adjourned the penalty phase to allow her an opportunity to purge her contempt.

The parties submitted a consent request to amend the procedural order governing the arbitration for determination of compensation under the Expropriations Act.

The Ontario Land Tribunal granted the request, rescinded the previous procedural order, and issued an amended procedural order with a revised timetable leading up to a 15-day video hearing scheduled to commence on October 15, 2025.

The City of Ottawa brought a Request for Review of an Ontario Land Tribunal decision determining compensation for an expropriated property.

The City alleged the Tribunal made material errors in calculating market value by conflating Gross Building Area (GBA) with Gross Floor Area (GFA).

The Tribunal found that the requested changes were substantive and could not be corrected as minor errors under Rule 24.4.

However, applying Rule 25.7(c), the Tribunal concluded that the conflation of GBA and GFA, misstatements of evidence, and resulting confusion constituted a convincing and compelling case that an error was made such that a different decision would likely have been reached.

The Tribunal ordered a partial rehearing limited to the issue of market value, treating the original findings on highest and best use and environmental remediation costs as agreed.

Metrolinx brought a motion seeking compliance with undertakings and answers to questions refused or taken under advisement during the examination for discovery of the Claimant's representative.

The Claimant argued that answering the questions would violate the principle of proportionality under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Tribunal found that the Claimant provided no evidence of the burden or costs to support its proportionality argument.

The Tribunal ordered the Claimant to answer the majority of the disputed questions, while finding it was not required to answer a select few.

The City of Barrie sought to expropriate a 105-acre property for municipal purposes, including a community centre, library, and parkland.

The owners requested a Hearing of Necessity, arguing the City lacked a specific, defined plan for the property.

The Tribunal found that the City was not required to have a specific defined plan, but only a clear objective or purpose, which it had established.

The Tribunal concluded the proposed expropriation was fair, sound, and reasonably necessary.

However, due to the City's initial failure to provide sufficient particulars in its Notice of Application, the Tribunal recommended the City pay the owners' costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding a claim for compensation following an expropriation of lands by the Town of Oakville.

The parties agreed on a draft Procedural Order and requested a 10-day hearing.

The Tribunal scheduled the hearing for December 2025 and issued the Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

The City of Ottawa expropriated the claimants' property for the Stage 2 Light Rail Transit project.

The parties disputed the highest and best use and market value of the property.

The claimants argued for a high-density two-tower development valued at $13.2 million, while the City argued for a lower-density development valued at $5.48 million.

The Tribunal found that the claimants' proposal was not legally permissible or financially feasible and failed to screen out the influence of the LRT scheme as required by the Expropriations Act.

The Tribunal determined the highest and best use was a single 17-storey tower and set the market value at $8,053,290, less a $269,000 deduction for environmental remediation costs, resulting in a total compensation award of $7,784,290.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the pre-hearing steps and organization of an 8-day video hearing scheduled to commence on February 3, 2025.

The hearing will determine the compensation owed to the claimant arising from the Ministry of Transportation's partial expropriation of the claimant's land.

The appellant appealed the election of a delegate to the Board of Directors of the Ontario Pork Producers Marketing Board, arguing she was not an eligible 'producer' under Ontario Regulation 403/10.

The delegate had sold her primary hog operation but continued to raise a small number of hogs for farmgate sales.

The Tribunal found that the delegate met the regulatory definition of a producer at the time of the election, as she owned and produced hogs on a property in the relevant zone.

The appeal was denied.

The claimants, Oakville Developments (2010) Inc. and Shoppers Realty Inc., sought compensation under the Expropriations Act for the expropriation of their property interests by Metrolinx for a transit project.

Following a status hearing, the Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent to govern the conduct of the upcoming 13-day video hearing.

The hearing was bifurcated, with Phase 1 addressing market value and injurious affection relating to the taking, and Phase 2 addressing disturbance damages and other entitlements.