Shane Rayman

The claimant, McDonald's Restaurants of Canada Limited, brought a motion seeking a confidentiality clause in a Procedural Order to protect sensitive commercial and financial data related to its $2,000,000 business loss claim arising from an expropriation.

The claimant argued that disclosure of this information could be used by competitors to its detriment.

The respondent, York Region, opposed the motion, arguing that the requested order was overly broad, would interfere with solicitor-client communications, and was unnecessary given the deemed undertaking rule.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding the request too onerous and unsubstantiated at this preliminary stage, noting that the claimant failed to demonstrate a compelling need for the pre-emptory confidentiality order.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the proceedings leading up to an expropriation arbitration hearing between Don Valley Auto Centre Ltd. and Metrolinx.

The order sets out the schedule for pleadings, discovery, expert reports, and the hearing dates scheduled for September 2024.

The parties resolved a draft Procedural Order and Issues List on consent regarding a claim for compensation under the Expropriations Act for the construction of the Highway 6 Morriston Bypass.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued the Procedural Order to govern the proceedings leading up to a Case Management Conference scheduled for March 1, 2024.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding a claim for compensation arising from Metrolinx's expropriation of a temporary easement over the claimants' property for the GO Expansion Project.

The Tribunal issued a Procedural Order on consent, setting out the issues list, order of evidence, and scheduling a three-day video hearing on the merits for June 2024.

The claimant brought a motion for a procedural order and a confidentiality order in an expropriation compensation claim arising from a road widening.

The respondent sought an adjournment, arguing that Metrolinx, the purported ultimate beneficiary of the taking, should be given the opportunity to seek participant status.

The Tribunal expressed concern about adding participants to land compensation matters but granted an adjournment, directing the respondent to file responding materials clarifying Metrolinx's liability and setting a schedule for the continuation of the motion.

The claimant sought compensation for injurious affection and disturbance damages under the Expropriations Act.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a fresh as amended procedural order to govern the upcoming five-day video hearing, replacing the previous procedural order issued in February 2021.

The Claimant brought a claim for compensation under the Expropriations Act arising from the closure of an access point during highway construction.

Following an urgent adjournment requested by the Respondent due to a witness's hospitalization, the Tribunal held a case management conference to schedule new dates.

The Tribunal scheduled a motion date to hear the Claimant's motion to strike, the Claimant's motion for costs thrown away, and the Respondent's motion to withdraw deemed admissions.

A new five-day hearing on the merits was also scheduled.

The claimants and respondent submitted a request on consent for a procedural order to govern the proceedings for the determination of compensation under the Expropriations Act.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued the requested procedural order, setting out the schedule for pleadings, discoveries, mediation, expert meetings, and the hearing dates.

At a Case Management Conference regarding a land compensation dispute under the Expropriations Act, the respondent municipality sought an order compelling the claimant to serve a Statement of Claim.

The claimant argued the request was premature pending a development application.

The Tribunal found that under Rule 26.9, once a Notice of Arbitration is served, the claimant must serve a Statement of Claim.

The Tribunal ordered the claimant to serve its Statement of Claim by a specified date to prevent further delay and prejudice regarding interest payments.

Two groups of landowners appealed the Surveyor General's confirmation of a survey that extended road allowances to the water's edge of Georgian Bay, separating their properties from the beach.

The appellants argued the Surveyor General erred by ignoring a previous Divisional Court decision, misapplying common law principles of accretion, and rejecting estoppel arguments.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals, finding the Surveyor General made reasonable findings of fact supported by evidence, including that no accretion had occurred and that the original 1820s survey intended the road allowances to reach the water.

The court held the standard of review was correctness for law and palpable and overriding error for fact, and found no such errors.

The claimant brought a motion to compel compliance with a procedural order and to amend timelines in a land compensation proceeding under the Expropriations Act.

At the opening of the motion hearing, the parties advised the tribunal that they had agreed to proceed to private mediation and requested that the motion and procedural order timelines be stayed.

The tribunal ordered that the current procedural order remain in place with suspended timelines, held the motion in abeyance, and directed the parties to schedule a further conference after the mediation.

Metrolinx applied for a warrant to take possession of expropriated lands, while the respondent landlords and tenants applied to postpone possession, arguing Metrolinx failed to make a valid, good-faith offer of compensation under s. 25 of the Expropriations Act.

Metrolinx had offered $1.00 due to alleged environmental contamination but refused to answer questions or provide environmental reports during examinations.

The respondents sought an adjournment to bring a refusals motion before a Master.

The court granted the adjournment, finding the respondents had a reasonable basis to test whether Metrolinx's offer was made in good faith.

The applicant, a commercial tenant, sought judicial review of the respondent City's actions during the expropriation of restrictive covenants in its lease.

The applicant alleged a denial of procedural fairness regarding the timing of disclosure and the City's refusal to consent to an adjournment of the Hearing of Necessity.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the City met its statutory obligations and owed no broader common law duty of procedural fairness at that stage.

The Court also declined to rule on the validity of the expropriation, finding the application premature as the applicant had withdrawn from the statutory hearing process and no final expropriation decision had been made.

The parties reached an agreement regarding the costs of the appeal.

The Court of Appeal ordered costs to the respondent in the agreed amount of $20,000, inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The appellant property owner appealed a decision granting the respondent municipality a prescriptive easement for a watermain installed on the property in 1979-1980.

The appellant argued the municipality's use was not open, that the burden of proof regarding permission was reversed, and that public authorities with expropriation powers cannot acquire prescriptive easements.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the application judge reasonably inferred the owners had actual or imputed knowledge of the watermain, the lack of evidence of permission rendered any burden of proof issue moot, and there is no legal bar preventing municipalities from acquiring prescriptive easements.

The applicant property owner sought a mandatory injunction requiring the respondent municipality to remove a watermain that had been installed on its property in 1979 or 1980.

The municipality brought a cross-application seeking a declaration that it had acquired a prescriptive easement over the land.

The court found that the municipality had established continuous, uninterrupted, open, and peaceful use of the land for the watermain for over 20 years prior to the property's conversion to the Land Titles system, without permission from or objection by the property owners.

The court granted the municipality a prescriptive easement and dismissed the property owner's application for removal.

The appellant's property was damaged by flooding following significant rainfalls in May 2013.

The floodwaters originated from adjacent land expropriated by the respondent municipality in 2009 for a construction project.

The appellant had commenced an injurious affection claim before the Ontario Municipal Board in 2011.

Following the flooding, the appellant commenced an action in Superior Court in June 2015.

The respondent moved for summary judgment on the basis that the action was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The motion judge found the claim was discoverable when the flooding occurred in May 2013.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred by failing to consider whether an action in Superior Court would be an appropriate means to seek a remedy, and by misapprehending the evidence regarding the appellant's belief that the OMB had exclusive jurisdiction over injurious affection claims.

The appellants, owners of waterfront properties on Nottawasaga Bay, appealed a decision of the Coordinator in the Office of the Surveyor General confirming a municipal resurvey under the Surveys Act.

The resurvey extended two road allowances straight across accreted lands to the water's edge, effectively cutting off the appellants' water access.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeals, finding that the Coordinator's decision was unreasonable.

The Court held that the Surveys Act does not displace the common law principles of accretion, which dictate that accreted lands attach to riparian properties and should be equitably allocated.

The matter was remitted for a trial of an issue regarding whether the survey should be confirmed with or without amendments.

The appellant car wash business appealed an Ontario Municipal Board order requiring it to pay $86,943.20 in costs to the respondent municipality after its claim for injurious affection was dismissed.

The appellant argued the costs were excessive and the Board placed undue reliance on the respondent's $15,000 settlement offer.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the appeal, finding the Board properly exercised its discretion under the Expropriations Act to award costs based on the appellant's unreasonable conduct in refusing the offer and proceeding with a meritless claim.

The plaintiff, a long‑term managerial employee terminated without cause, moved for summary judgment seeking damages for wrongful dismissal beyond the statutory minimums paid under the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The employer argued that contractual terms limited notice to statutory minimums, that bonus payments should not form part of damages, and that mitigation issues required a trial.

The court found the contractual termination clause void for violating statutory minimum standards and rejected the employer’s claim that it had been validly amended.

Applying Bardal factors, the court held that the employee was entitled to 18 months’ reasonable notice and that bonus payments formed an integral component of compensation during part of the notice period.

Summary judgment was granted with damages reflecting compensation and benefits during the notice period, subject to a trust for mitigation income.