Disturbance damages are any form of loss that are a “natural and reasonable consequence of the expropriation.” Both property owners and tenants have independent claims for damages attributable to disturbance.
Disturbance damages are more typically claimed by business owners that are tenants of property subject to an expropriation. Nevertheless, these damages are available provided that they are not too remote and a reasonable consequence of the expropriation.
The onus is on the claimant to prove disturbance damages – and there must be a causal connection between the expropriation and the loss claimed.
Examples of cases where disturbance damages were successfully awarded to the expropriated property or business owner are included below:
- Schiedel v. Waterloo 1982 25 LCR 189 – loss of business where owner unable to relocate within the same trading area;
- Madsen v. Toronto 1 LCR 27 – extra costs of dislocation and relocation;
- Schlotzer v. Ontario (1978) 15 LCR 312 – Where not feasible for business owner to relocate for five year period
- Funshine Investments Ltd. v. Ontario (1986) 35 LCR 52 – costs of closing down;
- Dell Holdings v. Toronto 1997 LCR 81 – loss caused by delayed expropriation. In this case, the principle was established that whenever land is expropriated, compensation will be paid.
- Devine v. MTO 1999 67 LCR 253 – carrying costs of property incurred during delayed expropriation
- Kowali v. Ontario – construction damages
- Gorczyca v. Ontario 1988 41 LCR 39 – insurance premiums on equipment in storage + legal fees and land transfer tax;
- Martin v. Ottawa-Carleton (1967) 11 LCR 56 – interest on borrowed money;
- Shearer v. Ontario (1980) 21 LCR 329 – interest on money borrowed for bridge financing;
- Lofranco v. Toronto 1982 25 LCR 11 – interest on money borrowed to pay professional fees
Each case is unique to the property and business owner that is subject to an expropriation law. If you are impacted by a public works project, contact our expropriation law firm today.
Don’t Hesitate To Ask
The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.