Tim Hill

At a case management conference, the parties agreed to hold the applicant's application for judicial review in abeyance pending the Ontario Land Tribunal's decision on a request for reconsideration under section 23 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021.

The court endorsed the agreement, setting a timetable for the filing of amended notices and application records following the release of the Tribunal's decision.

In these cross-motions for costs following an expropriation compensation decision, the Tribunal considered the interaction between the Indemnity Principle under the Expropriations Act and the efficiency objective reflected in Rule 49 settlement-offer consequences.

The Tribunal held that an owner recovering less than 85 per cent of the authority’s offer is not automatically disentitled to costs, but discretionary consequences may follow where the owner unreasonably rejects a proper offer and pursues the claim inefficiently.

The Tribunal found the June 15, 2018 offer was a proper plus-costs offer, that the claimant’s non-acceptance was unreasonable, and that the claimant’s stale and incomplete expert preparation, procedural inaction, and wasteful conduct justified reducing its scale of recovery after that date and awarding the authority partial indemnity costs throughout.

The claimant received reduced costs, and the authority also recovered partial indemnity costs.

At a Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal determined the procedural schedule and format for two upcoming motions for costs following an expropriation compensation decision.

The Tribunal declined to order mandatory mediation, rejected the claimant's request to bifurcate the hearing into separate entitlement and quantum phases, and directed that both motions be heard concurrently over a five-day period, with the claimant presenting its motion first.