Thomas C. Marshall

The appellant appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision dismissing its claims for compensation for injurious affection, business loss, and disturbance damages following the expropriation of lands for a highway overpass.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review for findings of fact by the OMB is palpable and overriding error, and correctness for questions of law.

The court found no palpable and overriding error in the OMB's conclusion that the appellant's loss of profits was not attributable to the expropriation, but rather to other factors including the appellant's own strategic marketing decisions.

The appeal was dismissed.

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 appellants appealed a judgment declaring that the sale of Hydro One shares by the Crown contravened s. 48(1) of the Electricity Act.

Before the appeal was heard, the government withdrew the public offering and enacted new legislation repealing s. 48(1) and expressly authorizing the sale of the shares.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot, finding that the legal and factual foundation of the dispute had disappeared and that the circumstances did not justify an exception to the general rule against hearing moot appeals.

The Supreme Court of Canada granted the applicant's application for leave to appeal from the judgment below.