Ottawa (City) v. Wright et al., (2007) 228 O.A.C. 101 (DC)

• Judge: Carnwath, Jennings and Whitten, JJ.
• Court: Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
• Case Date: June 11, 2007
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2007), 228 O.A.C. 101 (DC)

Ottawa v. Wright (2007), 228 O.A.C. 101 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] O.A.C. TBEd. AU.031

City of Ottawa (appellant/respondent) v. Debra Wright and Tracy Ann Wright, Roslyn Frankl, Subash Aggerwal and 128023 Canada Inc. (respondent/claimants)

(06-DV-1239)

Indexed As: Ottawa (City) v. Wright et al.

Court of Ontario

Superior Court of Justice

Divisional Court

Carnwath, Jennings and Whitten, JJ.

August 13, 2007.

Summary:

The City of Ottawa acquired land from the Wrights and the Frankls for the purpose of its storm water management. The Ontario Municipal Board established the market value of the two parcels of land. The City appealed.

The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the appeal.

Expropriation - Topic 1038

Measure of compensation - Methods of valuation - Market value - The City of Ottawa acquired land from the Wrights and the Frankls for the purpose of its storm water management - The Ontario Municipal Board established the market value of the two parcels of land - The Board concluded that (a) the claimants' lands had a special adaptability and potential that made them suitable for storm water management purposes; (b) the private sector and Wright recognized those special attributes; (c) the private sector paid for the lands in recognition of their storm water management attributes and (d) the lands should be valued with those attributes being taken into consideration, so that the highest and best use of the lands be valued for storm water management purposes to facilitate urban development prior to, and notwithstanding, the expropriation "scheme" - The City appealed, asserting that the Board erred in failing to exclude from the market value its intended special use and in failing to exclude the increase in value resulting from the development or the imminence of the development in respect of which expropriation was made, contrary to s. 14(4) of the Expropriation Act - The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the appeal - The Board properly instructed itself as to the applicable law in s. 14(4) - The Board concluded the lands should be valued at their highest and best use, that of storm water management purposes to facilitate urban development - The Board's conclusion was a reasonable one - See paragraphs 36 to 51.

Expropriation - Topic 2207

Practice and procedure - Appeals - Standard or scope of review by courts of decisions of boards - The City of Ottawa acquired land from the Wrights and the Frankls for the purpose of its storm water management - The Ontario Municipal Board established the market value of the two parcels of land - The City appealed - The Ontario Divisional Court held that given the lack of a privative clause, the purpose of the Expropriation Act, the Board's expertise and the nature of the question (market value of the subject lands), the appropriate standard of review was reasonableness - See paragraphs 20 to 32.

Cases Noticed:

Bibeault - see Syndicat national des employés de la Commission scolaire régionale de l'Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, local 298 (FTQ).

U.E.S., Local 298 v. Bibeault - see Union des employés de service.

Union des employés de service, local 298 v. Bibeault - see Syndicat national des employés de la Commission scolaire régionale de l'Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, local 298 (FTQ).

Syndicat national des employés de la Commission scolaire régionale de l'Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, local 298 (FTQ), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 1048; 95 N.R. 161; 24 Q.A.C. 244, refd to. [para. 20].

Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982, addendum [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1222; 226 N.R. 201, refd to. [para. 20].

Dr. Q., Re, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 226; 302 N.R. 34; 179 B.C.A.C. 170; 295 W.A.C. 170, refd to. [para. 20].

Ryan v. Law Society of New Brunswick, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 247; 302 N.R. 1; 257 N.B.R.(2d) 207; 674 A.P.R. 207, refd to. [para. 21].

Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority v. Dell Holdings Ltd., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 32; 206 N.R. 321; 97 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 26].

Director of Investigation and Research, Competition Act v. Southam Inc. et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 748; 209 N.R. 20, refd to. [para. 27].

Wellington (County) - see 747926 Ontario Ltd. et al. v. Board of Education of Upper Grand District.

747926 Ontario Ltd. et al. v. Board of Education of Upper Grand District (2001), 150 O.A.C. 295; 56 O.R.(3d) 108 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

Tri Lag Corp. v. Board of Education of York Region District (2003), 169 O.A.C. 217 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 29].

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority v. Gadzala et al. (2006), 211 O.A.C. 29; 266 D.L.R.(4th) 52 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 29].

Lee Brothers Ltd. v. Windsor (City), [2005] O.J. No. 6193, refd to. [para. 31].

Waxman et al. v. Waxman et al. (2004), 186 O.A.C. 201; 44 B.L.R.(3d) 165 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

Fraser v. R., [1963] S.C.R. 445, refd to. [para. 44].

Trepke et al. v. Matsqui (District) (1990), 43 L.C.R. 110 (B.C.E.C.B.), refd to. [para. 45].

Boyd et al. v. Ontario (Minister of Transport) (1995), 55 L.C.R. 246 (Ont. Mun. Bd.), refd to. [para. 55].

Pike v. Ontario (Minister of Housing) (1978), 13 L.C.R. 338 (L.C.B.), refd to. [para. 56].

Counsel:

Paull N. Leamen, Douglas Kelly & Ursula Melinz, for the appellant;

Stephen F. Waqué and Frank S. Sperduti, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard on June 11, 2007, at Toronto, Ontario, by Carnwath, Jennings and Whitten, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court. The following judgment of the Divisional Court was delivered by Whitten, J., on August 13, 2007.