link to Expropriation Law Centre home page

Cases



Menu
Home
News
Events
Statutes
Cases
Articles
Reviews
Photos
Statistics
Publications
Professional Directory
Links

Advertisement

Cohen Highley LLP

Advertisement


Free Case Law
[Back] DECISION DIGEST  
Record no. 217
Case name: Dell Holdings Ltd. v. Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority
Date: 1997-01-30
Jurisdiction: Canada - Federal
Court: Supreme Court of Canada
Release registry: [Subscribers only]
Court file: [Subscribers only]
Order no.: [Subscribers only]
Parties: Name   Appearing as
  Dell Holdings Limited   Claimant
  Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority   Authority
Decision makers: Name Designation
Cory, Peter de Carteret J.
  Gonthier, Charles Doherty J.
  Iacobucci, Frank J.
  La Forest, Gerard V. J.
  Major, John C. J.
  McLachlin, Beverley Marion J.
  Sopinka, John J.
Lawyers: Name   Appearing for
  Finlay, Bryan   Claimant
  Richards, James Gregory   Claimant
  Tanaka, Lynda C.E.   Claimant
  Brownlie, John D.   Authority
  Heakes, Susan J.   Authority
Experts:  
Taking type: [Subscribers only]
Valuation date: [Subscribers only]
Case elements: [Subscribers only]
Decision: Appeal by the Claimant from a compensation award made by the Ontario Municipal Board. The Claimant was an experienced developer that owned about 40 acres of land that was ripe for development. It applied to the municipal government for approval of a residential development. However, a transit authority had also identified the subject property as suitable for use as a transit facility. The municipality withheld development approval until after the transit authority ascertained its requirements and expropriated a 9 acre portion of the subject property. A development approval was issued for the remainder. The Claimant then sought disturbance damages in the expropriation proceedings for business losses caused by the delay.

At the first hearing before the Municipal Board, the Claimant was successful in recovering business losses in the amount of $500,000 as disturbance damages. However, the O.M.B. decision was overturned on the first appeal to the Divisional Court. That decision was upheld on a further appeal to the Court of Appeal. The Claimant was successful on the present appeal and the original award for disturbance damages was restored. The Claimant also received an award of costs.
Comment: [Subscribers only]
Statute references: [Subscribers only]
Case references: [Subscribers only]
ExLaw citation: [1997] EXLAW 217
Neutral citation: N/A
Parallel citations: (1997) 68 ACWS (3d) 665
  (1997) 45 ADMIN LR (2d) 1
  1997 CanLII 400
  1997 CarswellOnt 78
  (1997) 142 DLR (4th) 206
  (1997) 60 LCR 81
  (1997) 36 MPLR (2d) 163
  (1997) 206 NR 321
  (1997) 97 OAC 81
  (1997) 31 OR (3d) 576
  (1997) 7 RPR (3d) 1
  [1997] SCJ No. 6
  [1997] 1 SCR 32
Related decisions:      
  Earlier
  [1990] EXLAW 1 Ont. M.B. 1990-01-31
  [1991] EXLAW 1 Ont. CJGD Div 1991-05-01
  [1995] EXLAW 3 Ont. C.A. 1995-04-07
  [1995] EXLAW 19 S.C.C. 1995-11-09
  Later
  [2000] EXLAW 14 Ont. S.C.J. 2000-11-02
Reasons: [Subscribers only]
Digests contain original content produced by ExLaw and copyright in this content is held by Dicta Legal Services Ltd. (dba Expropriation Law Centre). Reasons for decision are the text of original decisions released by the court or tribunal and edited for accuracy where required. No copyright is claimed for these materials.
Join the Mailing List
Enter your name and email address below:
Name:

Email:


Subscribe 
Unsubscribe 

Online
Subscription
Service
Online Subscription Service sign-up
Online Subscription Service log-in

Advertisement



© 2024 Dicta Legal Services Ltd.
Page last updated: November 18, 2024