| Case name: |
Torvalley Development Ltd. v. Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority |
|
|
|
| Jurisdiction: |
Canada - Ontario |
|
| Court: |
Supreme Court - High Court of Justice - Divisional Court |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Parties: |
Name |
|
Appearing as |
| |
Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority |
|
Appellant |
| |
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce |
|
Respondent |
| |
Torvalley Development Ltd. |
|
Respondent |
|
| Before: |
Decision maker |
Designation |
|
Donnelly, James Michael |
J. |
| |
Saunders, Edward |
J. |
| |
Southey, James Bonham Strange |
J. |
|
| Lawyers: |
Name |
|
Appearing for |
| |
MacDougall, Roderick R. |
|
Appellant |
| |
Parkinson, John G. |
|
Appellant |
| |
Wigley, Jonathan H. |
|
Appellant |
| |
Waque, Stephen F. |
|
Respondent |
|
| Experts: |
Name |
Occupation |
Appearing for |
| |
Kellough, William Roy |
Appraiser |
Respondent |
| |
Robson, Robert M. |
Appraiser |
Respondent |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Decision: |
Appeal and cross-appeal from a compensation award made by the Ontario Municipal Board pursuant to the Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 148. The subject property was a 42.69 ac. parcel of land located in the City of Toronto. The Board had awarded $16,150,000 in compensation for the market value of the land taken plus interest and costs. On this appeal the Appellant expropriating authority alleged that the Board had erred in considering s. 14(4) of the Act when it found that the Appellant's 1962 acquisition plan should be ignored in determining whether the subject property was capable of development. It was held that the Board had acted within its jurisdiction and was justified in coming to the conclusion that a development would likely have been approved. The expropriating authority's appeal was dismissed. On the cross-appeal the Respondent claimants alleged that the Board had misconstrued some of the appraisal evidence and sought an increase in the award. It was held that proper compensation for market value of the land taken should be $19,000,000. Costs were awarded to the Respondents on a solicitor-and-client basis. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ExLaw citation: |
[1989] EXLAW 14 |
|
| Parallel citations: |
(1989) 16 A.C.W.S. (3d) 431 |
| |
1989 Can LII 4320 |
| |
1989 CarswellOnt 605 |
| |
(1989) 61 D.L.R. (4th) 172 |
| |
(1989) 42 L.C.R. 101 |
| |
(1989) 33 O.A.C. 286 |
| |
[1989] O.J. No. 1298 |
| |
(1989) 69 O.R. (2d) 508 |
| |
(1989) 7 R.P.R. (2d) 165 |
|
|
|
