| Case name: |
Dell Holdings Ltd. v. Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority |
|
|
|
| Jurisdiction: |
Canada - Federal |
|
| Court: |
Supreme Court of Canada |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Parties: |
Name |
|
Appearing as |
| |
Dell Holdings Limited |
|
Appellant |
| |
Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority |
|
Respondent |
|
| 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 |
|
Appellant |
| |
Richards, James Gregory |
|
Appellant |
| |
Tanaka, Lynda C.E. |
|
Appellant |
| |
Brownlie, John D. |
|
Respondent |
| |
Heakes, Susan J. |
|
Respondent |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Decision: |
Appeal by a property owner from a compensation award made by the Ontario Municipal Board pursuant to the Expropriations Act, RSO 1980, c 148. The Appellant 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, the Respondent transit authority had also identified the subject property as suitable for use as a transit facility. The municipality withheld development approval until after the Respondent ascertained its requirements and expropriated a 9 acre portion of the subject property. A development approval was issued for the remainder. The Appellant then sought disturbance damages in the expropriation proceedings for business losses caused by the delay.
At the first hearing before the Municipal Board, the Appellant was successful in recovering disturbance damages for business losses in the amount of $500,000. 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 Appellant was successful on the present appeal and the original award for disturbance damages was restored. The Appellant also received an award of costs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ExLaw citation: |
[1997] EXLAW 217 |
|
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
|
|
|
