Ontario civil | Expropriation
Abandonment
Offer-back obligation pursuant to Expropriations Act (Ont.) not triggered
School board expropriated property from numbered company for purposes of construction and operation of school and related amenities. Board authorized its staff to implement land swap with city by which much of property would be exchanged for city lands. Company’s application alleging that board’s authorization triggered s. 41(1) of Expropriations Act (Ont.), obliging board to offer to re-convey property to it, was dismissed. Company appealed. Appeal dismissed. School board’s action did not trigger offer-back obligation in s. 41(1) of Act. Board did not abandon property when it authorized land swap with city and did not change its purposes for expropriating property. Board did not act as agent for city in expropriating property. Court undertook purposive approach to interpretation of Act. It was not court’s function to micromanage board’s actual use of property, so long as it was used as part of school site or related amenities owned by board. Application judge erred to extent of awarding full indemnity costs of board. Company’s appeal was allowed in terms of costs and award was set aside and substituted for amount of $14,000 all-inclusive.
1739061 Ontario Inc. v. Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board (March 15, 2016, Ont. C.A., K. Feldman J.A., P. Lauwers J.A., and M.L. Benotto J.A., CA C60267) Decision at 251 A.C.W.S. (3d) 262 was affirmed. 265 A.C.W.S. (3d) 673.
Offer-back obligation pursuant to Expropriations Act (Ont.) not triggered
School board expropriated property from numbered company for purposes of construction and operation of school and related amenities. Board authorized its staff to implement land swap with city by which much of property would be exchanged for city lands. Company’s application alleging that board’s authorization triggered s. 41(1) of Expropriations Act (Ont.), obliging board to offer to re-convey property to it, was dismissed. Company appealed. Appeal dismissed. School board’s action did not trigger offer-back obligation in s. 41(1) of Act. Board did not abandon property when it authorized land swap with city and did not change its purposes for expropriating property. Board did not act as agent for city in expropriating property. Court undertook purposive approach to interpretation of Act. It was not court’s function to micromanage board’s actual use of property, so long as it was used as part of school site or related amenities owned by board. Application judge erred to extent of awarding full indemnity costs of board. Company’s appeal was allowed in terms of costs and award was set aside and substituted for amount of $14,000 all-inclusive.
1739061 Ontario Inc. v. Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board (March 15, 2016, Ont. C.A., K. Feldman J.A., P. Lauwers J.A., and M.L. Benotto J.A., CA C60267) Decision at 251 A.C.W.S. (3d) 262 was affirmed. 265 A.C.W.S. (3d) 673.
