Case Law Update: OLT Signals Strict Stance on Adjournments in Expropriation Hearings
Overview
In the recent decision of Craigholme Estates Ltd. v Thames Valley District School Board the Ontario Land Tribunal took a firm approach to case management in expropriation proceedings.[1] The Tribunal declined to grant a second adjournment for a scheduled compensation hearing. Although both parties indicated a desire to adjourn, the Tribunal did not grant the request. The decision reinforces the Tribunal’s expectation that parties adhere to procedural schedules but for extenuating circumstances.
Background
The Claimant was the owner of lands municipally known as 207 Seventh Avenue in Central Elgin, Ontario. The Claimant was seeking the determination of compensation under section 26 of the Expropriations Act arising from the expropriation of part of the Claimant’s property.
This matter had been ongoing since August 2023 and involved a series of procedural deadline revisions. Following an initial case management conference, a 14-day hearing was scheduled for February 2026, that hearing was subsequently rescheduled to September 28, 2026.
In advance of a third case management conference to be held in April 2026, the parties jointly sought an additional adjournment. The respondent advised the Tribunal that the parties were seeking to adjourn arbitration until June 2027. The primary reason for the request was attributed to a delay in arranging examinations for discovery of the Claimant’s representative due to the passing of his spouse.
The Tribunal did not accept the parties request and advised that the September 2026 hearing would remain in place unless a motion under Rule 17 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure was brought by either party.[2]
The Tribunal Decision
The Tribunal did not grant the adjournment on the basis that the parties failed to demonstrate sufficient justification for delay, and they did not comply with the procedural requirements of Rule 17.
The Tribunal’s Analysis
The Tribunal emphasized that adjournment of hearing dates previously scheduled on consent of the parties will not be granted for in convenience purposes. Rather, adjournment request must meet the requirements set out in Rule 17.
In assessing the parties request, the Tribunal provided that hearing dates are determined after consultation and agreement of the parties. The hearing date is typically scheduled far enough out to allow parties to complete the necessary steps leading to an expropriation arbitration. The deadline for each step is developed with input from both parties and often on consent. The Tribunal determined that this process provides the parties with opportunity to achieve a fair, just, expeditious and cost-effective resolution.
The Tribunal found that there was insufficient evidence to justify the rescheduling of a hearing. Although, there was a delay in completing the Claimant’s examination for discovery, the Tribunal noted that the examination had been set for a date that was four months prior to the start of the hearing. Therefore, providing enough time for completion of the outstanding discovery.
Ultimately, the Tribunal’s decision emphasizes that adjournments apply to exceptional circumstances, where it is demonstrably necessary to ensure procedural fairness.
[1] Craigholme Estates Ltd. v Thames Valley District School Board, 2026 CanLII 40984 (ON LT).
[2] Ontario Land Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure, Ontario Land Tribunal, effective 1 June 2021.