Expropriation Law Centre

Cases


Menu

Advertisement

Peterson Stark Scott

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
Registry: [Subscribers only]
File: [Subscribers only]
Order no.: [Subscribers only]
Parties: Name   Appearing as
  Dell Holdings Limited   Claimant
  Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority   Authority
Before: Decision maker Title
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, J. Gregory   Claimant
  Tanaka, Lynda C.E.   Claimant
  Brownlie, John D.   Authority
  Heakes, Susan J.   Authority
Experts:  
Taking type/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]
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
Neutral citation:  
ExLaw citation: [1997] EXLAW 217
Parallel citations: (1997) 68 A.C.W.S. (3d) 665
  (1997) 45 Admin. L.R. (2d) 1
  (1997) 142 D.L.R. (4th) 206
  (1997) 60 L.C.R. 81
  (1997) 36 M.P.L.R. (2d) 163
  (1997) 206 N.R. 321
  (1997) 97 O.A.C. 81
  (1997) 31 O.R. (3d) 576
  (1997) 7 R.P.R. (3d) 1
  [1997] S.C.J. No. 6
  [1997] 1 S.C.R. 32
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

© 2020 Dicta Legal Services Ltd.
Page last updated: August 5, 2019