Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority v. Dell Holdings Ltd., (1991) 50 O.A.C. 192 (DC)

• Judge: Steele, Campbell and McKeown, JJ.
• Court: Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
• Case Date: March 20, 1991
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1991), 50 O.A.C. 192 (DC)

Toronto Transit v. Dell Holdings Ltd. (1991), 50 O.A.C. 192 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

In The Matter Of an application for determination by the Ontario Municipal Board of compensation to be paid by the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority for land acquired under section 31 of the Expropriation Act known as Part of Lots 6, 7 and 8, Range 3 N.D.S. and Range 4 N.D.S. in the City of Mississauga (formerly the Township of Toronto), in the Regional Municipality of Peel shown as Part 1 on Ministry of Transportation and Communications Plan P-9040, deposited with the Land Registrar for the Registry and Land Titles Division of Peel (43) as Plan 43R-7698 and as Part 2 on Ministry of Transportation and Communications Plan P-9040-1 deposited with the Land Registry and Land Titles Division of Peel (43) as Plan 43-7831

Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority (respondent/appellant) v. Dell Holdings Limited (claimant/respondent)

(No. 283/90)

Indexed As: Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority v. Dell Holdings Ltd.

Ontario Court of Justice

Divisional Court

Steele, Campbell and McKeown, JJ.

May 1, 1991.

Summary:

The Toronto Area Transit Operating Au­thority expropriated part of the owner's lands. The Municipal Board awarded, inter alia, $500,000 damages for business loss attribu­table to the delay by the Authority in expro­priating the lands. The Authority appealed the validity of the award. The owner cross-appealed the quantum of the award and the interest on the award.

The Ontario Divisional Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Board's ruling re­specting business loss. The court therefore found it unnecessary to deal with the cross-appeal.

Expropriation - Topic 176

Right to compensation - Injurious affec­tion - General - The Ontario Divisional Court held that injurious affection and disturbance were not interchangeable terms under the Expropriations Act - See para­graph 20.

Expropriation - Topic 1207

Measure of compensation - Injurious affection or damage to unexpropriated portion - Invalid claims - [See second Expropriation - Topic 1305 ].

Expropriation - Topic 1305

Measure of compensation - Elements of compensation - Disturbance and incon­venience - General - [See Expropriation - Topic 176 ].

Expropriation - Topic 1305

Measure of compensation - Elements of compensation - Disturbance and incon­venience - General - The owner of ex­propriated land claimed damages for busi­ness loss attributable to the alleged delay by the expropriating authority in expropri­ating the lands - The Ontario Divisional Court held that there could be no damages awarded for delay in development, as the damages were not due to a disturbance and were not for injurious affection - See paragraphs 12 to 33.

Expropriation - Topic 1306

Measure of compensation - Elements of compensation - Business disturbance - [See second Expropriation - Topic 1305 ].

Expropriation - Topic 1367

Measure of compensation - Business interests - Loss of income pending expro­priation - [See second Expropriation - Topic 1305 ].

Expropriation - Topic 2203

Practice and procedure - Appeals - Vari­ation of award on appeal - The Ontario Divisional Court referred to the test to be applied by an appellate court respecting whether to interfere with a decision of the Municipal Board on quantum in expropri­ation cases - See paragraph 10.

Words and Phrases

Business loss - The Ontario Divisional Court held that damages for "business loss", within the meaning of that phrase as found in s. 19 of the Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 148, did not include dam­ages for delay in development - See para­graph 19.

Cases Noticed:

Pollidor Holdings Ltd. v. Minister of Transportation and Communications (1986), 36 L.C.R. 1, refd to. [para. 10].

Hartel Holdings Co. Ltd. v. Calgary (City), [1984] 1 S.C.R. 337; 53 N.R. 149, consd. [para. 15].

Ridgeport Developments v. Metropolitan Toronto Region Conservation Authority (1976), 11 L.C.R. 143, appld. [para. 24].

Bersenas v. Minister of Transportation and Communications (1984), 31 L.C.R. 97, consd. [para. 25].

Rotenberg et al. v. Borough of York (1974), 6 L.C.R. 77, refd to. [para. 29].

Statutes Noticed:

Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 148, sect. 1(1)(e) [para. 17]; sect. 1(1)(e)(i) [paras. 30-31]; sect. 1(1)(e)(ii) [paras. 29-30]; sect. 2(1) [paras. 17-18]; sect. 13 [paras. 20, 24]; sect. 13(1) [paras. 17-18]; sect. 13(2) [paras. 3, 17, 22]; sect. 18(1) [paras. 17, 24, 28]; sect. 19(1) [paras. 17, 19]; sect. 31 [paras. 1, 5]; sect. 35 [para. 17].

Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 505, sect. 6 [para. 4].

Counsel:

John D. Brownlie, Q.C., and Susan J. Heakes, for the appellant;

Lynda C.E. Tanaka and J.G. Richards, for the respondent.

These appeals were heard before Steele, Campbell and McKeown, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court on March 20, 1991. The decision of the Divisional Court was delivered on May 1, 1991 by Steele, J.