Sean G. Foran

The Claimant sought compensation for the expropriation of her property by the City of Toronto.

The City expropriated the land to build a new childcare centre after selling its previous childcare site to Metrolinx for the Eglinton LRT project.

The Tribunal determined that the 'scheme' to be ignored for valuation purposes was the childcare centre, not the Eglinton LRT.

Finding the highest and best use to be an 8-storey mixed-use mid-rise development, the Tribunal awarded market value compensation of $4,326,350 based on a rate of $70 per square foot buildable.

A claim for disturbance damages was dismissed.

The claimant in an expropriation proceeding became insolvent and its assets, including the right to continue the proceeding, were sold to a new corporate entity.

At a Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal directed the claimant to bring a written motion for an order permitting the continuance of the claim by the new entity and scheduled a further Case Management Conference.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference to update the timetable for an expropriation compensation claim.

The parties agreed to a new timetable, which was filed with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal ordered that all outstanding undertakings be fulfilled by January 31, 2023, and approved the agreed-upon timetable.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order governing the arbitration of a land compensation claim under the Expropriations Act between the claimants and the Region of Waterloo.

The order sets out the schedule for the exchange of documents, examinations for discovery, mediation, expert meetings, and the filing of witness statements leading up to a 14-day video hearing scheduled to begin on November 20, 2023.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference regarding a land compensation claim under the Expropriations Act for properties located on Weston Road in Toronto.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal rescinded a previous procedural order and issued an amended procedural order setting out the schedule for discoveries, expert meetings, and a five-day video hearing.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference to schedule a hearing for compensation arising from the expropriation of land by the Region of Waterloo.

The parties indicated they expect to call 14 witnesses.

The Tribunal scheduled a 14-day hearing commencing in November 2023 and directed the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The claimant sought compensation for injurious affection resulting from construction and road closures associated with the respondent's light rail transit project.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties advised that pleadings were exchanged but undertakings and refusals remained incomplete.

The Tribunal scheduled a nine-day video hearing on the merits and directed the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The claimants brought a motion regarding delayed responses to undertakings from the discovery of the City's appraiser in an expropriation compensation matter.

As previous timeframes could no longer be met, the parties sought a new hearing date to allow for appropriate exchange dates and potential mediation.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference, set new dates for the exchange of appraisal reports, and rescheduled the 15-day hearing for May and June 2023.

The parties brought cross-motions to compel answers to undertakings and questions taken under advisement during examinations for discovery in an expropriation claim.

The claim relates to business losses allegedly caused by the Region's light rail transit project construction.

The Tribunal ordered the Claimant to provide evidence supporting the date of construction completion and the basis for its appraisal value, but found requests for a planner's file premature.

The Tribunal ordered the Region to produce project work schedules and explain the reasoning for a related street widening, but dismissed requests for indemnity claims against the contractor and voluminous project updates on proportionality grounds.

The parties attended a Case Management Conference to finalize a procedural order for a hearing to determine the claimant's cost claim following an expropriation.

The parties disagreed on the timeline for the respondent to provide its response to the claimant's bill of costs.

The Tribunal noted that referring the matter to an assessment officer was impractical due to closures and delays, and ordered that the costs be fixed by the Tribunal under section 32(1) of the Expropriations Act.

The Tribunal scheduled the hearing for April 2022 and appended a procedural order reflecting the necessary timelines.

An appeal concerning the enforceability of a termination clause in an employment contract.

The employer appealed a summary judgment decision finding the termination clause void and unenforceable.

The clause contained a "four-week benefits" provision that conflicted with the Employment Standards Act minimum notice requirements for long-term employees.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision, finding the clause void both because it contravened the ESA at the outset and because it contained genuine ambiguity regarding the application of statutory minimums.

The Plaintiff sought damages for wrongful dismissal and unpaid commissions.

Both parties brought motions for summary judgment.

The Defendants sought dismissal of the action or alternative judgment for a small amount.

The Plaintiff brought a cross-motion for partial summary judgment on wrongful dismissal damages.

The court found the termination provision in the Plaintiff's employment contract void and unenforceable due to potential non-compliance with the Employment Standards Act, 2000, entitling the Plaintiff to common law reasonable notice, which was fixed at five months.

The Defendants' motion for summary judgment on the commission claim and enforceability of the "Entire Agreement Clause" was dismissed, as genuine issues requiring a trial remained due to insufficient evidence regarding the parties' intentions and the unconscionability of the clause.

Friday Harbour and its predecessors operated a marina on Lake Simcoe, which involved dredging a channel that submerged part of a right of way (Block C) and using the remaining 'Marina strip' exclusively since the 1960s.

The defendant, owner of Block C, argued the right of way was abandoned and counterclaimed for trespass.

The court found that Friday Harbour acquired ownership of the Marina strip by adverse possession, as its use was open, notorious, exclusive, and inconsistent with the titled owner's intended use.

However, the court also found that Friday Harbour had abandoned its right of way over the 'Western strip' of Block C, as it had relied on the impassability of the barrier between the strips to establish its adverse possession claim.

The defendants were successful on a motion for security for costs against the foreign corporate plaintiff and sought partial indemnity costs of approximately $18,000.

The plaintiff argued for a reduced amount of $10,000, claiming divided success and excessive time spent.

The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments, finding the defendants were entirely successful and the delegation of work between junior and senior counsel was appropriate for the complex motion.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01, the court fixed the defendants' costs at $15,000 all-inclusive.

This is a costs endorsement following a Rule 21 motion brought by Cams Atlas, LLC ("Cams") to dismiss counterclaims by Water Exchange, Inc. ("Water") and Tech Sonic International, Inc. ("Tech").

Cams' motion against Water was granted after Water conceded the point, but only after Cams had fully prepared.

Cams' motion against Tech was dismissed, as Tech's counterclaim was closely related to its defense.

The court found Tech entitled to costs for successfully defending the contentious part of the motion, while Cams was entitled to some costs against Water for the late concession.

The judge fixed costs, ordering Cams to pay Tech $16,000, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, after considering the complexity, importance of issues, and reasonable expectations of the parties.

The plaintiff brought a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss the defendants' counterclaims as an abuse of process, arguing they attempted to relitigate issues already decided in a New York judgment against one of the defendants.

The court granted the motion to dismiss the undefended counterclaim of the defendant subject to the New York judgment, as it was res judicata.

However, the court dismissed the motion regarding the counterclaim by the affiliated corporate defendant, finding that granting partial summary judgment risked inconsistent findings at trial, as the issues in the counterclaim were intertwined with the main action against that defendant.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the non-resident plaintiff, CAMS Atlas, LLC.

The plaintiff had obtained a New York default judgment against one of the defendants, Water Exchange, Inc., which was recognized in Ontario.

The plaintiff argued it would be unjust to order security for costs, alleging a complex web of interrelationships among the defendants that should make them all liable for the judgment.

The court declined to pierce the corporate veil at this preliminary stage, finding it would be premature and wrong in law.

The plaintiff was ordered to post $75,000 as security for costs.

The appellant marketing board appealed a trial decision finding the respondent abattoir was exempt from paying fees for 'barbecue' and extraprovincial hogs.

The respondent cross-appealed the trial judge's order for an accounting regarding partially condemned hogs and the costs award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusions based on the evidence and the parties' historical practices.

The appellants, including several pork producers and associations, appealed a decision of the Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission that revoked the mandatory marketing powers of the Ontario Pork Producers' Marketing Board (Ontario Pork).

The Commission's decision allowed producers to voluntarily choose their marketing methods and enter into direct supply contracts.

The Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal found that the Commission's decision did not respect the legislative principles of the Farm Products Marketing Act, as it effectively removed control of marketing from the local board without establishing an alternative plan.

The Tribunal ordered that the mandatory marketing provisions of Regulation 419 remain in force, but granted an 18-month blanket exemption to allow producers to market independently while Ontario Pork completes a comprehensive strategic planning and governance reform process.

At a pre-hearing conference, the Tribunal considered motions to lift, limit, or define the scope of a statutory stay of a decision by the Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission regarding the Ontario Pork Producers' Marketing Board.

The Commission's decision significantly changed the mandate of Ontario Pork from single desk marketing to a more open market.

The Tribunal applied the RJR MacDonald test, adapted for a statutory stay, and found no irreparable harm to the public interest if the stay remained in place.

The Tribunal declined to lift the stay but defined its scope, allowing certain preparatory work and pilot projects to continue while staying the implementation of the open market structure pending the appeal.