Stephen Waqué

The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding damages to the City of Windsor for the cost of restoring municipal roads to grade after Canadian Pacific Railway abandoned a railway line.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it was open to the trial judge to conclude that the railway's obligation to maintain the bridges continued after abandonment, and that the damages awarded represented the least cost to restore the roads to grade.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding the ownership of lands under the Riverside Drive bridge and allegations of bad faith.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the road was a busy public road in the 1880s, the railway never intended to acquire the land under the bridge, and the road was a municipal street owned by the City.

The appellant's argument that the federal Crown owned the land was rejected, as the road was not an unopened road allowance laid out by a Crown surveyor.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Following an appeal regarding compensation for expropriated properties, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The court found that success was equally divided between the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and the claimants, resulting in no costs awarded for that portion of the appeal.

However, the City of Toronto was substantially successful on the most time-consuming and financially significant issues against the claimants.

The court awarded the City costs fixed at $120,000.

The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the City of Toronto appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision awarding compensation to the respondents for the expropriation of their waterfront properties.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's assessment of market value, injurious affection, and loss of riparian rights, finding the Board's conclusions reasonable and supported by expert evidence.

However, the Court allowed the appeals regarding disturbance damages, setting aside a $4,000,000 award for delay and a $1,850,000 award for loss of a parkland dedication credit.

The Court found that the respondents, who were not active developers, did not suffer a compensable business disturbance from the delay, and that the parkland credit award constituted double recovery and was speculative.

The respondent was successful on an appeal and sought costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $70,987 plus disbursements and taxes.

The appellants argued the claimed rates and hours were excessive, particularly the attendance of two counsel and the time spent reviewing transcripts.

The court agreed that the hours claimed were excessive, the attendance of two counsel was unnecessary, and certain disbursements were not compensable.

Costs were fixed at $55,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The Crown appealed decisions of the Ontario Municipal Board awarding compensation for injurious affection to two groups of landowners following the expropriation of land for Highway 407.

The Crown argued the lands' value was already limited by the Parkway Belt West Plan and had no urban development potential.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the Board's findings that, but for the physical construction of the highway, the lands would likely have been released from the Plan and developed.

The loss of this opportunity was directly caused by the highway's construction, constituting compensable injurious affection.

The appellant school board expropriated a portion of the respondents' land for a school site.

The respondents sought compensation for the market value of the land and for lost developer's profit as disturbance damages.

The Ontario Municipal Board awarded market value but denied the claim for lost developer's profit.

The Divisional Court reversed, awarding the lost profit as disturbance damages.

The Court of Appeal allowed the school board's appeal, holding that lost prospective developer's profit is not compensable as disturbance damages under the Expropriations Act, and restored the OMB's award.

The City of Toronto brought a motion to quash an application for judicial review filed by the claimants regarding an interlocutory order made by an Ontario Municipal Board member in an expropriation compensation proceeding.

The claimants alleged the member's order, which allowed them to amend their claim but imposed costs and disallowed interest for the resulting delay, was unreasonable and tainted by bias.

The Divisional Court held that a single judge has jurisdiction to quash an application for judicial review.

The court found the claimants had waived their right to allege bias by failing to raise it at the earliest opportunity and that the member's order was reasonable.

The application for judicial review was quashed to prevent the fragmentation of administrative proceedings, as the order was interlocutory and no exceptional circumstances existed.

The Attorney General intervened in the proceeding.