Our Court Record

Our Court Record

  • The following constitute a summary of the reported cases involving Mr. Robson’s expert witness experience. Additional appearances have been made in other matters that remain unreported or involve private arbitrations:
  • Wood et al. v. Ministry of Housing - July 1979
  • 18 LCR 231 – Ontario Land Compensation Board
CLAIMANT (Wood) RESPONDENT (Ministry of Housing) AWARD
Beaton – $358,099

Farr – $265,318

Robson – $141,000 $155,983
  • Summary – This hearing involved the valuation of a 10.93 acre parcel of improved future development land located within the Town of Pickering and forming part of the North Pickering Project. The primary valuation issue involved ignoring the influence of the public project (Federal airport site and Provincial townsite) and it’s influence on market value between the announcement date of March 2, 1972 and the appraisal date of February 4, 1974.
  • Krabi et al. v. Ministry of Housing – May 1981
  • 22 LCR 301 – Ontario Land Compensation Board
CLAIMANT (Krabi) RESPONDENT (Ministry of Housing) AWARD
Mason – $1,016,976 Robson – $536,500 $522,818
  • Summary – This hearing related to the valuation of an 84.748 acre parcel of future development land located within the Town of Markham as part of the North Pickering Project. The primary valuation issue involved ignoring the influence of the public project (Federal airport site and Provincial townsite) and it’s influence on market value between the announcement date of March 2, 1972 and the valuation date of February 4, 1974.
  • Chappell et al. v. Ministry of Government Services – August 1983
  • 28 LCR 182 – Ontario Municipal Board
CLAIMANT (Chappell) RESPONDENT (Ministry of Government Services) AWARD
Kellough – $3,330,165 Robson – $283,500 $1,725,725
  • Summary – This hearing related to the appraisal of a 4.133 acre partial taking, for the controlled access Highway 403, from a 65.866 acre parcel located within central Mississauga. The primary valuation issue involved an appropriate assessment of the influence of the Parkway Belt West development scheme upon both the nature and timing of the probable development of the Creditview Community. The appropriate application of the “Before and After” market valuation technique plus the influence of the Parkway Belt land use controls on the subject property, after the taking, were also considered.
  • Zaichuk v. Ministry of Government Services – October 1983
  • 29 LCR 284 – Ontario Municipal Board
CLAIMANT (Zaichuck) RESPONDENT (Ministry of Government Services) AWARD
Kuyten – $2,900,000 Robson – $1,402,000 $1,639,000
  • Summary – An appraisal of a 29.764 acre partial taking, for the controlled access Highway 403, from a 59.215 acre parcel located within central Mississauga was the central issue of this hearing. The primary valuation issue involved an appropriate assessment of the influence of the Parkway Belt West development scheme upon the nature and timing of the probable development of the Creditview Community. Appropriate application of the “Before and After” market valuation technique as well as the influence of the Parkway Belt land use controls on the subject property, before the taking, were also considered.
  • Calgas Investments Limited v. Regional Municipality of York – August 1983
  • 29 LCR 297 – Ontario Municipal Board
CLAIMANT (Calgas) RESPONDENT (Region of York) AWARD
Robson – $39,560

Mason – $74,800

Clelland – $23,700 $44,938
  • Summary – A partial taking (1.482 acres) for a water storage tank to be located within the central portion of a 16.25 acre parcel of development land, in the Oak Ridges community of the Town of Richmond Hill, was the central issue in this hearing. An allowance was given for loss of development efficiency resulting from the irregular and prominent nature of the public requirements.
  • Chappell et al. v. Ministry of Government Services – November 1984
  • 31 LCR 214 – Ontario Divisional Court (Appeal of the Ontario Municipal Board Decision outlined above)
CLAIMANT (Chappell) RESPONDENT (Ministry of Government Services) AWARD
Kellough – $3,330,165 Robson – $283,500 $247,980
  • Summary – The Divisional Court held that the Parkway Belt West legislation was not the “development”, but that the Highway 403 project, which was contained within the Parkway Belt, constituted the development in respect of which the land was taken.
  • Watson et al. v. Ministry of Housing – October 1984
  • Ontario Municipal Board – Unreported
CLAIMANT (Watson) RESPONDENT (Ministry of Housing) AWARD
Kellough – $180,000

May – $140,000

Robson – $115,600 $138,200
  • Summary – This hearing involved the valuation of a 10.051 acre parcel of vacant future development land located within the Town of Pickering and forming part of the North Pickering Project. The primary valuation issue involved ignoring the influence of the public project (Federal airport site and Provincial townsite) and it’s influence on market value between the announcement date of March 2, 1972 and the valuation date of February 4, 1974.
  • G. Dunsmore Farm Limited v. Royal Victoria Hospital of Barrie – March 1988
  • 38 LCR 328 – Ontario Municipal Board
CLAIMANT (Dunsmore) RESPONDENT (Royal Victoria Hospital) AWARD
Kellough – $562,000 Robson – $80,650 $400,000
  • Summary – The valuation of a 16.0 acre parcel of vacant, future development land located at the northern limits of the Town of Barrie, in close proximity to Highway 400, for a future regional hospital site (adjacent to Georgian College) was the appraisal problem in this hearing. The primary valuation issue involved whether or not the development approach was appropriate when the land enjoyed potential for development eight to ten years in the future. Compensation for the loss of trees and gravel deposits cannot be added to the market value of land with residential development potential.
  • Topview Investments Limited et al. v. Regional Municipality of York - December 1987
  • 38 LCR 253 – Ontario Municipal Board
CLAIMANT (Topview) RESPONDENT (Region of York) AWARD
Pestl – $415,500 Robson – $82,125 $229,500
  • Summary – This hearing involved the appraisal of partial takings (0.109 acre) required for the re-alignment of Kennedy Road in order to construct a by-pass for the Village of Unionville, from a 4.10 acre, improved commercial property located within central Markham. The primary valuation issue related to an appropriate assessment of the impact of the reduced traffic exposure of the property, after the taking.
  • Torvalley Development Ltd. et al. v. Metropolitan Toronto & Region Conservation Authority – August 1988
  • 40 LCR 81 – Ontario Municipal Board
CLAIMANT (Torvalley) RESPONDENT (M.T. & R.C.A.) AWARD
Kellough – $26,500,000

Robson – $19,000,000

Strung – $4,250,000 $16,150,000
  • Summary – The hearing related to the valuation of a 43.0 acre parcel of development land located west of the Bayview Extension at the intersection of Pottery Road, close to the Rosedale neighbourhood of the City of Toronto. The primary valuation issues involved ignoring the influence of the public project (acquisition for flood control and open space by the M.T. & R.C.A.) and it’s underlying influence on the planning and development approval process. The valuation should not be based upon the original purchase price plus development expenses where the market value claim is supportable.
  • Torvalley Development Ltd. et al. v. Metropolitan Toronto & Region Conservation Authority - August 1989 42 LCR 101 – Ontario Divisional Court
  • (Appeal of the Ontario Municipal Board decision previously outlined)
CLAIMANT (Torvalley) RESPONDENT (M.T. & R.C.A.) AWARD
Kellough – $26,500,000

Robson – $19,000,000

Strung – $4,250,000 $19,000,000
  • Summary – The primary valuation issue involved a review of the appropriate consideration of the imminence of the expropriation. The secondary issue involved a rejection of the Municipal Board’s 15% profit deduction when applied to comparable sales with similar development potential.
  • Dell Holdings Limited v. Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority
  • - January 1990 43 LCR 138 Ontario Municipal Board
CLAIMANT (Dell) RESPONDENT (T.A.T.O.A.) AWARD
Robson – $1,519,830 Ozog – $892,900 $1,422,830* Under Appeal
  • Summary – This hearing related to two partial takings from vacant industrial and residential development lands within the central portion of Mississauga to facilitate the construction of a GO Transit rail commuter station. The valuation issues included consideration of injurious affection (diminished profits) for the remainder of the developer’s holdings resulting from the Authority’s acquisition delays. The increased residential development density, in proximity to station, was considered a partial cause of injurious affection in a slow apartment market.
  • Masae Limited v. The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto – November 1992
  • 47 LCR 78 Ontario Municipal Board
CLAIMANT (Masea) RESPONDENT (Metro) AWARD
Rodgers – $13,522,000 to $15,000,000

Morasutti- $12,000,000 to $13,300,000

Bedford – $3,800,000

Robson – $3,800,000

$3,000,961 (Net)
  • Summary – This hearing involved an acquisition of a 4.87 acre holding, at the eastern limit of Ordnance Street, in order to facilitate the proposed Front Street extension in the Strachen Avenue – King Street West vicinity of the City of Toronto. The valuation issues included consideration of the special location characteristics of the subject site, an analysis of the highest and best use lower than the maximum density permitted by the existing land use control structure plus financial modeling to prove that the owner’s development proposal was not financially viable.
  • Bamborough v. The Minister of Housing- January 1993
  • (Unreported) Ontario Municipal Board File No. L760790
CLAIMANT (Bamborough) RESPONDENT (Min. of Housing) AWARD
Robson – $61,000 $61,000
  • Summary – This hearing involved the consideration of the contributing value of a owner completed “unique” dwelling situated on a large parcel of future development land within the North Picking Project. The valuation was based upon the present value of the probable net income likely to be generated by the improvements, during the holding period prior to redevelopment
  • Captain Developments Ltd. v. Ontario (Ministry of Transportation) – June 1993
  • 50 LCR 176 Ontario Municipal Board
CLAIMANT (Captain) RESPONDENT (MTO) AWARD
Robson – $ 430,000

Gillis – $ 445,000

Ella – $ 0 $ 0
  • Summary
  • This hearing resulted from 4.08 ha. (10.087 acre) partial taking from a 10.04 ha. (32.21 acre) parcel of industrial development land situated within the north-east quadrant of the intersection of Highway 404 and 16th Avenue, Markham. The primary valuation issue that was arbitrated (land value of partial taking settled prior to the hearing) involved the loss of highway exposure for the future serviced industrial lands to be located close to the existing Highway 404. Financial analysis of the pre-expropriation and post-expropriation development costs were also completed and formed part of the owner’s claim.