You are not logged in.

#1 2014-01-12 22:39:57

Tommy
New member
Registered: 2008-04-17
Posts: 2

New Developements

From: Lyle Rettinger (l~-internalaudit@ho~ail.com)
Sent: December-27-13 1:28:22 PM
To: Ron Shaw (rshaw@city.stratford.on.ca)
Page 1 of2
Cc: Dan Nguyen (dan.nguyen@ontario.ca); david sunday (dsunday@sorbaralaw.com); Ray
Jacobs Qrjacobs@sympatico.ca); Jim Johnston Gimjohnstonl 949@gmail.com); Howard
Ackroyd (hjackroyd2@sympatico.ca); David Sloane (david@sloanelaw.ca); Craig
Pinchen (craig@pinchenlaw.com); Robert Berry (rberry@millerthomson.com); Steven
Pettipiere (spettipiere@millerthomson.com); Susan Carlyle (scarlyle@cplaw.com); Jim
Fisher Gfisher@bbo.on.ca); Jennifer Quick Qquick@millerthomson.com); Greg Weiler
(gweiler@bdo.ca); Brain Knowles (knowlesb@rogers.com); James Telford
Gtelford@valcoconsultants.com); Sandi Prendergast
( sandiprendergast@altusgroup.com); Chet Greason ( cgreason@stratf ordgazette.com);
Jeff Heuchert ( editor@stratfordgazette.com); Donal O'Connor
( donal.oconnor@sunmedia.ca); Bruce Urquhart (bruce.urquhart@sunmedia.ca);
Thomas Rylett (trylett@tprltd.ca)
3 attachments
OMB-FILE.pdf (1348.0 KB) , series of questions-Ryan-made-up-for meeting.pdf
(51.3 KB) , Mr. Ron Shaw.docx (17.8 KB)
Dear Ron Shaw
I have attached a letter addressed to you discussing issues with the Cooper Site Asset.
Also other attachments as well, for reference purposes.
Lyle Rettinger
cc.
Chair Tanaka - Dan Nguyen -OMB
David Sunday
Ray Jacobs
Jim Johnston
Howard Ackroyd
David Sloane
Craig Pinchen
Robert Berry
Steven Pettipiere
Susan Carlyle
Jim Fisher
Jennifer Quick
Greg Weiler
Thomas Rylett
Brain Knowles-Valeo Consultants Inc.
James Telford- Valeo Consultants Inc.
https://coll 31.mail.live.com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=a65946a3-6f24-l 1 e3-865c-6c... 1/11/2014
Outlook Print Message
Sandi Prendergast-Altus Group
Chet Greason-StratfordGazettee
Jeff Heuchert-StratfordGazettee
Donal O'Connor-The Beacon Herald
Bruce Urquhart-The Beacon Herald
Page 2 of2
https://col131.mail.live.com/mail/Print … 6a3-6f24-l le3-865c-6c... 1/11/2014
Mr. Ron Shaw
My name is Lyle Rettinger, I think you know who I am. I had an opportunity
to copy the information from the OMB file No LC120027 In Nov. of this year,
at the OMB office down town Toronto near where your Lawyers offices are,
regarding the expropriation of the two part parcel of the cooper site.
In reviewing the file, Gowlings forwarded to the OMB ,the transcript of the CrossExamination
of you dated Dec 14, 2009. I was there also that day.
I have attached some information that is in the file in this email, regarding Appraisal
questions asked of you in a transcript of Cross-Examination on Dec 14, 2009.
I attached pages out of the Altus Appraisal Report which references the Rylett
Engineering Report and I attached the Aug 30,2013 Letter addressed to Chair Tanaka
at the OMB which also references the the Rylett Engineering Report in the Altus Appraisal Report.
from John Doherty. Now remember there was Four lawyers, Lawrence Ryan and you in this room.
I would suggest that all of you read through this Altus Appraisal Report and would of noticed
Valeo Consultants Inc, on the Bottom of the Rylett Report. Just so your aware Valeo Consultants
is another real estate Appraisal firm out of London. I would suggest in your professions,
all of you may have noticed this. So keep this in mind when David Sunday asked
questions of you Ron, what was going through your mind at this time, thinking who is looking for an
appraisal and who wants the appraisal to be hidden and a secret from others. I am only suggesting
that this scenario would be possible in this situation as your counsel always answered the questions,
we will take that under advisement, or was it that David Sunday had concerns, there is an appraisal that
could have been in the hands of the city for some reason or another that did not want to be made
public.
I find that odd, you being the CAO of Stratford, maybe would have wanted to answer these
questions yourself that David Sunday asked of you. The other interesting fact is David Sunday
ne~er went in to detail like the date of an appraisal, he was asking of you, do you think he did this for a
!
reaJon by not supplying you a date were it would show up on this transcript and someone
wo~ld question this. I do not believe David Sunday was on a fishing exhibition, just how he was asking
' the jquestions.
Now I am going to suggest to you Ron Shaw, that I have come into position of an Appraisal Report
done by Valeo Consultants Inc. from London. The gentleman that made the Report is Brain Knowles.
I am suggesting that this is the report that certain individuals did not want to surface and for good
reason. Now I will get in contact with Valeo to see if I can copy this report for parties that will be
Interested in reading the report. So I am asking you now Ron Shaw maybe you have this report
already but if you do not, you would probably want a copy I would expect. I am doing an internal
audit on the Cooper Site Asset and this Report is very important for a number of reasons.
There is a number of individuals that are aware I am conducting this internal audit.
I may suggest that John Doherty and the firm Gowlings may be in a conflict of
interest position dealing with this Cooper Site Asset, which was involved in a personal
Bankruptcy of an individual that had an interest in this Cooper Site Asset from the very beginning.
This individual and myself bought this property from the City of Stratford in good Faith with a Phase
Three Report.
I also attached a series of questions that was put to the Archie Mclellan Group of guys.
Lawrence Ryan made these series of question up. I wanted Bill Nelson to put them on ltalkStratford
but he refused for some reason or another. Now I hope they surface on ltalkStratford.
It is of my opinion that David Sunday, a past associate at Gowlings knows more than he wants to let on.
Myself and another associate met David Sunday up in the offices of Gowlings late Feb of 2011 and 1 ask
him a series of questions that he failed to answer in good faith, which his reply was, why so late in the
game, and stated we have not decided if the companies 1101644 Ont. Ltd or 1221025 Ont. Ltd., would
be used in the expropriation proceedings, which would not make sense at all, but found out later, that
shortly after he left the firm. It is of my opinion he connected all the dots and knows the real truth.
Lyle Rettinger
f
__,I
!
j
i
I J
''
J
j
..J
)
J
f
I
.J
!
J
I
J
--
1
_)
i
J
_J
i
i _;
_J
j
~owlings
A.u9!4st3oJ 201 :B·
SENT BY E-MAIL & COURIER
Ontario Municipal Board
655 Bay Street
Suite 1500
Toronto, ON M5G 1E5
··~~npb(l;::~i.Qij~i.r.'~Ti1rl.ilf<~·
. o~·ar.· Qfl:Eiif·tt~il:~K~l:
John S. Doherty
Direct 519-575-7518
Direct Fax 519-571-5018
john.doherty@gowlings.com
File No. K0542346
RECEIVED·
@ SEP.- 3 2013 @
ENV\RQNMENr ·~. LAND
TRlaUNA°ls ONTARIO
Re: 1353837 Ontario Inc. v. The Corporation of the City of Stratford
OMB File No.: LC120027
This letter is further to your decision of June 21, 2013 (the "Decision") and subsequent
correspondence between the parties. Pursuant to the Decision, 1353837 Ontario Inc.
("135" or the "Claimant") filed its Amended Notice of Arbitration and Statement of Claim (the
"Amended Claim"). 135 served and filed the Amended Claim on August 2, 2013. Pursuant
to the Decision, the City is obligated to file its Reply on or before September 20, 2013.
However, on August 23, 2013, Mr. Williams advised us that the City will not be serving and
filing its Reply pursuant to the Decision. A copy of Mr. Williams' letter dated August 23,
2013 is attached for your reference, as well as an electronic copy of the Amended Claim,
which are attached as Appendices "A" and "B''.
In your decision issued November 6, 2012, you indicated that you would be involved in
case management of this process. Specifically, paragraph 12 of that decision states:
I will assume responsibility for case management of this matter at the OMB and the parties are urged
to attempt to agree to the terms of a procedural order setting out the case management process.
Unless otherwise requested by the parties, any attendances on case management including
settlement of the terms, or dealing with any motions brought, should be held by teleconference.
[emphasis addeclj
To avoid unnecessary delay, and to ensure that the City files its Reply pursuant to the
timeline stated in the Decision, we request that you review the Amended Claim and our
comments dealing with Mr. Williams' concerns as detailed below and, if necessary, hold a
teleconference call to resolve any issues.
/ Gowling Lafleur Henderson UP • Lawyers • Patent and Trade-mark Agents
.J 50 Queen Street North · Sulte 1020 • PO Box 2248 · Kitchener· Ontario · N2H 6M2 • Canada T 519-576-6910 F 519-576-6030 gowlings.com
!
j
f
..)
I
I
J
!
j
i
..J'
gowlings
In drafting the Amended Claim, significant time and effort was spent ensuring that the
claims that were struck as a result of the Decision were removed from the Original Notice of
Arbitration and Statement of Claim (the "Original Claim").1 Upon our review of Mr. Williams'
letter, it appears to us that an overriding issue is that the City objects to the Board dealing
with factual elements that are included in the Amended Claim, and asserts that the failure
to remove these factual points renders the Amended Claim non-compliant with the
Decision. We disagree with this interpretation of the Decision.
For ease of reference, this letter uses the headings used by Mr. Williams for each purported
issue.
J Defect#1
J
i
J
i
;
_j
i
i _;
I ....,.)
_J
i
' _)
;
I
....)
1. The Amended Claim no longer claims Market Value for the Disputed Lands
Mr. Williams' letter provides bald allegations that the Amended Claim relates fundamentally
to the Disputed Lands. There are limited details provided in his ·letter. For example, Mr.
Williams' letter states:
... Some (but not all) of the references to the "Lands" (defined to mean both the Expropriated Lands
and the Disputed Lands) have simply been changed to reference only the Expropriated Lands.
However, throughout the Amended Claim, there continue to be numerous references to the "Lands",
which renders the Amended Claim not only confusing and impossible to respond to, but contrary to
the .clear direction of the Board.
As you are well aware, there is an extensive history in this matter. There is evidence that
demonstrates that the Disputed Lands and the Expropriated Lands were dealt with as a
single piece of land in the 1990's. Essentially, in Mr. Williams' letter he implies that in using
the short form of the defined term the "Lands", and by not using the longer term of "the
Disputed Lands and the Expropriated Lands", that somehow it is impossible for the City to
respond to the Amended Claim.
Mr. Williams has previously indicated that the Project may have included lands other than
the Expropriated Lands. Specifically, at the April 30, 2013 motion, Mr. Williams, absent
affidavit evidence, indicated:
So while an initial scheme back in the mid '90s may have indicated a project that would have included
lands other than the expropriated lands, that was clearly dead by March of 1997.2
In light of this knowledge, the Claimant believes that the City is fully capable of drafting a
response to the Amended Claim.
2. The Amended Claim does not rely on an interest in or right to the Disputed Lands
1
.For example, paragraph 6 of the. Amende? Claim now c~early states that the issue of ownership of the
Disputed Lands 1s b.efo~e th~ Superior Co~rt m the 2002 Action. The Amended Claim does not ask the OMB
!o make any determination with respect to interests in the Disputed Lands.
See transcripts from the April 30, 2013 hearing date, p. 110.
Page 2
J
I I
.,;
.)
.J
i
I
j
..J
.J
_,I
l
_j
·-
I
;
.J
....)'
-
I
!
...,)
--
!
..
i
I
....J
_)
gowlings
The Amended Claim provides a history to support:




The claims for costs thrown away, which include costs thrown away in dealing with
the Disputed Lands as part of the sale of the Expropriated Lands;
The date effective use of the property was lost which is relevant to 135's claim for
the calculation of interest;
Market Value, which may include development of the Expropriated Lands as a part
of a complete block, regardless of whether or not 135 owned the Disputed Lands;
and
An award of increased interest up to 12% as provided for in s. 33(4) pursuant to the
Expropriations Act because of delays caused by the City.3
Mr. Williams asserts in his letter, that it is problematic that:
The Amended Claim continues to define the Project, which the Claimant alleges "was approved», to
include use of both the Expropriated and Disputed Lands.
Mr. Williams' comment not only ignores his admission that the Project included other lands
as stated above, it ignores certain submissions that were made at the hearing of the City's
motion on April 30, 2013, specifically:
THE CHAIR:· Is the project the scheme --the project is the development plan that was to be put
in this block. And whether or not it includes the disputed lands, it -- could it still be valued for
the undisputed lands contribution to the project as a whole?
MR. WILLIAMS: I suppose theoretically that's possible.
THE CHAIR:· It's not unusual for there to be three or four, or more property owners who put their
lands together for a development of a community, for instance. And there's usually a developers
agreement that works out servicing and costs and that kind of thing.
MR. WILLIAMS:· Right.
THE CHAIR:· So no matter who owns the disputed lands, or the Downey Street parking lot, or these
disputed lands, theoretically there could have been a small "P" project structured, so that this block
with the four frontages on streets close to the downtown, could have been developed, and
theoretically the developers, the community of developers could have had parcels divided up for
whatever interests, even overlapping redesign the lot lines, redivide the lot lines on the basis of an
agreement.
MR. WILLIAMS:· Sure, that's entirely possible.4 [emphasis addedj
~This is supported by significant documentary evidence from 1995-1996. The particulars ~f such are detailed
in paragraphs 57-82 of the Amended Claim.
4 See transcripts from the April 30, 2013 hearing date, pp 60-61 .
Page 3
i
j
j
;
i
J
;
f
' .}
I
;
j
I
' .J
i
'
.J
l
i'
~
!
I
.J
-
'
.)
i
J
I
..J
I
I
...)
i
!
....)
..
j
I
..J
I
I
_)
gowlings
Mr. Williams has acknowledged in his responses to Ms. Tanaka's questions that
consideration of the Disputed Lands may conceivably be necessary in the Amended Claim.
This does not require that 135 have an interest in the Disputed Lands, or that the OMB try
to determine if 135 has an interest in the Disputed Lands.
Whether 135 has any right, title or interest to the Disputed Lands is not a threshold and
central issue that must be determined before the Board can consider the Amended Claim
or any of the pleadings related to the "Project", the "Lands" or the "Scheme".
(a) The Project was approved and did include the Expropriated Lands and the
Disputed Lands. To plead the facts is not a defect.5
In light of there being no requirement for an interest in the Disputed Lands in the Amended
Claim to plead specifics or a Project and Scheme that includes the Disputed Lands, it is
unclear how the Amended Claim fails to comply with the Decision. Further, Mr. Williams'
submissions indicate that the City is in a position to reply to the Amended Claim {although
the City continues to refuse to serve and file any such Reply).
(b) The "Scheme" perpetrated against 135 by the City included the City's refusal
to transfer the Disputed Lands and thereby usurping 135's Project.
The Amended Claim also sets out various changes to the Project to deal with the City's
refusal to transfer the Disputed Lands so that a modified version of the Project could go
forward on the Expropriated Lands (absent the Disputed Lands). The Amended Claim
clearly distinguishes the Lands (including both the Disputed and Expropriated Lands) and
the Expropriated Lands, so that there is no confusion.
(c) · 1 Damages are claimed with respect to the Expropriated Lands only.
All damages claimed for costs thrown away with respect to the Project which included the
Disputed Lands (as defined in the 1990's and disputed by Mr. Williams) in no way rely on a
determination of right, title or interest in the Disputed Lands and has not been pleaded as
such. Disagreement between the parties as to factual elements of Amended Claim in no
way ousts the jurisdiction of the OMB. To the contrary, these disagreements are properly
dealt with in the pleadings .
The Decision did not state the Board has no jurisdiction over damages for delay arising
from the City's campaign to prevent the use of the Expropriated Lands or the completion of
the approved and I or any other adaptive reuse Project .
5 There is no note in the Decision requiring that any claims related to the Project be struck.
Page4
,
,;''
,J
j
; :
J
i
!
.J
I
.J1
,
I
I
.J
'
' ! ...;
J
, : _;
...J
!,
-~
..
! ;
' gowlings
Defect#2
Mr. Williams' letter asserts that the Amended Claim continues to relate fundamentally to
matters that are the subject of the 2002 Superior Court Action, Court File No. 02-276 (the
"2002 Action").
To support this proposition, Mr. Williams' letter includes a chart previously used, seeking to
strike specific paragraphs from 135's original Notice of Arbitration and Statement of Claim
(the "Original Claim"). Mr. Williams has added a column that purports to argue that the
Amended Claim continues to include continued overlap between the claims. The chart in no
way considers changes between the Original Claim and the Amended Claim as
demonstrated in the following example .
Taking Mr. Williams' first example, he asserts that paragraph 22(o) of the Amended Claim
is an allegation regarding 135's claims to a declaration with respect to the Disputed Lands.
Paragraph 20(o) states:
20. The market value of the Expropriated Lands must be valued on an objective basis with all the
attributes and potentialities of this unique property, including:
{o) adjacent to municipal parking lot(s) (the Downie St. Parking Lot and, if the Claimant is
determined to not be the mvner of the Disputed Lands, (the northern part of the St.
Patrick St. Parking Lot));
It is unclear how the request that the market value of the Expropriated Lands include
consideration of adjacent parking is outside the jurisdiction of the OMB. The above quoted
paragraph includes the portion of that paragraph that was deleted by 135 in compliance
with the Decision, as the Original Claim did require a determination as to ownership of the
Disputed Lands. Paragraph 20{o) of the Amended Claim is in compliance with the Decision .
The context of the 2002 Action, the Decision and related litigation provides further
understanding for why over a decade later, the Amended Claim approaches the matter
from a different perspective .
In 2002, 135 did not know why the City's campaign existed, only that efforts were taken to
interfere and damages were being suffered. The City's reason for their campaign
crystallized, when they chose to expropriate because 135 had not completed the approved
Project. What the OMB must now determine is how far back in time this expropriation
covers for damages. If, for example, the OMB determines the expropriation covers all
damages back to 2003, then damages from 1996 to 2003 will be left for the Court to
determine in the 2002 Action.
In this example, 135 uses the date of 2003 because of positions taken by the City in
Superior Court File No. C-1119-09 (the "Fire Claim"), in a claim that was issued October 9,
2009 and defended by the City in May of 2011. The Fire Claim relates to damages sought
Page 5
i
.)
-
J
I
I
.J
!
I
.)
i
!
j
-
I
;
.J
l
i
..J
.J
·-
!
-!
..
I
I
.J
I
j
i
..)
I
I
..)
gowlings
by 135 against the City and Festival Hydro Inc. for a fire that occurred on the Expropriated
Lands in 2003. This includes claims for resultant Project losses. In the City's Statement of
Defence to the Fire Claim, the City asserts that the City should be credited from funds
flowing from the expropriation.6 Specifically, the Defence states:
50. Stratford pleads that it is entitled to be credited In the within action to all amounts paid to
the Plaintiffs pursuant to the 2010 Settlement, and any additional compensation that the Plaintiffs
or Ryan have received or will receive, whether directly or Indirectly, with respect to the Plaintiffs' legal
Interest In the Cooper Site .
51. Stratford pleads that If the Plaintiffs have suffered loss or damage as alleged in the Statement of
Claim, which is not admitted but denied, that the amount of compensation received by the Plaintiffs
and/or Ryan In the 2010 Settlement exceeds the amount of damages the Plaintiffs have incurred.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs are not entitled to any recovery against Stratford in this action. [emphasis
addedJ
While the Fire Claim seeks credit from the expropriation proceedings, the City's ·Fire Claim
Defence also asserts that the 2002 Action is duplicative of the Fire Claim. Specifically, the
City states:
25. Stratford further pleads that the subject matter of the within action overlaps with the subject matter
of an action brought by 1353837 and Ryan against Stratford, being a claim commenced by way of a
Statement of Defence and Counterclaim dated August 21, 2002, in Court File No. 02-726, being a
part of the proceeding commenced at Stratford by way of a Statement of Claim Issued July 15, 2002
(the "Parallel Action") ... Stratford pleads that, to the extent the within action seeks relief which is
already sought in the Parallel Action, the within action is duplicative of the Parallel Action and
constitutes an abuse of process.
The City's position in the Fire Claim alleges that aspects of prior Superior Court
proceedings have been subsumed in the expropriation proceedings. This is contrary to the
position taken in Mr. Williams' letter. A copy of the Statement of Claim and the City's
Statement of Defence in the Fire Claim are attached as Appendices "C" and "D".
Under the Expropriations Act, claims must be related to the expropriation as liability is a
given against the authority. In the 2002 Action, the City's motivation for interference was not
then known, only that its actions resulted in 135 suffering losses. Any overlap resulting from
the City's 2002 Action and its expropriation is a direct result of the City's actions, all of
which will be addressed through the pleadings and the discovery process in the OMB
proceedings.
The 2002 Action commenced by the City, seeks a declaration that the City owns the
Disputed Lands. As a result of the Decision, 135 will amend its defence and counterclaim,
which will set out that the delay and interference by the City culminated in the Expropriation
of the Undisputed Lands and a Quit Claim agreement for the Disputed Lands where 135
would be compensated under the Expropriations Act for any right title or interest the Court
6 This includes funds floWing from the 2010 Minutes of Settlement, which the City defines as the u201 O
Settlement" in its Statement of Defence in the Fire Claim.
Page 6
;
i
)
gowlings
may find. The amendment will further provide that upon determination by the OMB as to
the date of effective loss of use of the land occurred and what damages are covered as a
direct result of the expropriation, any damages recovered in the expropriation proceedings
will not be sought in the 2002 Action, eliminating any overlap.
The request in paragraph 402(n) of the Amended Claim for an Order of the Board "that all
evidence in this matter may be relied on in all Superior Court of Justice matters with respect
to the Lands" is a reasonable request, consistent with the principles of proportionality.
Defect#3
J The Decision states that with respect to 135's cross motion for interim costs, "[tJhe Board
cannot make that determination at this stage in the proceedings."7 The Decision does not
strike any references to interim costs in 135's Original Claim.
-
I
'
)
i
.)
I
j
I
j
.)
;
.J
j
I
.J
-
(
I _,
i
i
....;
.J
Defect#4
1. 135 used its best efforts to comply with Rule 122.
135 utilized its best efforts to comply with Rule 122. Numerous heads of damages are
further particularized with 135's best efforts in providing estimates. Precise figures for some
amounts could not be determined within the timeframe set by the Boards decision and
would benefit from assistance from experts which require interim costs to be paid. The
Project included substantial and numerous modifications over a long period of time to
address the City's campaign of interference, resulting in increased losses, all of which will
be set out in relevant phases I timeframes.
All figures have been justified as set out in the summary of claim in paragraph 402. There
are twenty five paragraphs detailing the basis for these calculations in the Amended Claim
to the best of 135's ability.8 Mr. Williams' letter appears to suggest that the Amended Claim
is not sufficiently detailed. We strongly object to that implication.
The inclusion of the words "or such further amount as the Claimant may advise" not "or
such other amount as the Claimant may advise" as stated by Mr. Williams, were used to
cover any increase that may be appropriate upon completion of expert reports.
Mr. Williams' request for particulars of the basis upon which the specific figures in
paragraph 402 have been calc~lated is a ro er question for discovery, certainly not
lgroulnds ito relfus.e. toJfilSe a Reply. Mr- William,s iri · ··an· · · ~ , , · rti:whicn .r~l18tal1~d1~filb~ .. "~t~~~-~~•
7 The Decision at para. 61.
8 The Amended Claim at paras. 376-401.
Page 7
i
j
i
'
..;
I
I
...I
f
i
..)
(
_,I
-
I
'
;
I
!
....J
I
I
f
...J
....J
i
f
_)
!
...;
i
....)
gowlings
The City should not be permitted to continue to Delay this Matter
There is nothing stopping the City from responding or setting out its position on specific
heads of relief claimed. The City in its defence to the Fire Claim has taken the position that
compensation for Project losses not only have been subsumed by the expropriation
proceedings, but also alleges there were no losses. Based on the City's prior position, it is
unlikely the City will agree with any amount claimed by 135.
All of the above has been previously discussed with the City and many of these points were
before the Board. The City has a right of discovery. That right of discovery necessarily
follows the timely filing of a Reply by the City. If we receive any correspondence from Mr.
Williams demonstrating an intention of the City to file a Reply, we will advise the Board and
proceed accordingly.
We request that you consider the above and assist in an
further delay in this matter. we
would be happy to attend on a telephone conference call at a date and time convenient to
counsel and the Board.
Yours very truly,
GOWLING LAFLEUR HENDERSON LLP
JSD:ra
Encl.
cc Dan Nguyen
cc Chris Williams
OTT _LAW\ 3798012\7
Page 8
I
I ---1 ~ .. I
I f.":
I
I
I
I
I
r:
r . :
r.. ..
I . _,
l.:
I [_
I (;
L.
I l...
I l
I
I
I
I
I
f .
I·'. I .
/'"': I ,
.. : ·.... ~·.
'· .
. :.. . ~ .
·A.P;I!ffi\X$~t":::R1t:P:~ttJ;~['('J,:•
<M;r:rl:J#wr~it<:~rJt)'~μ.
CNRCentre
VALUATION DATE:
Fe6f.irilty:'l$}-':iQQ5
14·.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr, ·Lawrence Ryan
CNRCentre
rD5 St Patrick Street
Stratford, Ontario
Dear Mr. Ryan:
RE: 105 ST. PATRICK STREET, STRATFORD, ONTARIO
LAND v ALUATION - 11.50 ACRES
Jn accordance with your request, we have inspected the above property (''GlfR,:f!f>P,~rty''.).",~~Lh~ve
carried out a complete valuation analysis ("Appraisal") in order to render an lstihk'.t~'fil'hdrk~t:~u~>
The purpose of the appraisal is to estimate current market value {o
o.g. the !:>asi$ of, a f.reel:lold titl~. wl01.out deb( or. encumbran~.
fiitici~t>~·1•~~··'sUi:>!J9ij···i9i~'tili~ri8'lli'~::wffR'··,R!ripfi'blie:N.f6if i~g&mffi·"'··
C6\:nl:iifuiity cM<lfr'uiiti)ii·JF
There is a substantial but older existing building that currently sits vacant and has limited obvious
function. The development proposed for the CNR centre incorporates the structure although the highest
and best use for a Lhird party is likely ~o focus on the.underlying land. In approaching the land value we
have broad1y gauged that the building does not detract from the value, and that if the plan to develop the
property with retail and betel uses succeeds, then the buildings may _prove to add value to the underlying
W~tl~~1~1i!i~iii1~iiriirrl&~~Rl~~~
We submit our findings herein and conclude that in our professional and considered opinion the market
value as at February 15, 2005 subject to important underlying contingencies and limiting conditions set
out herein, is:
FrvE MILUON SEVEN HUNDRED & FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS
$5,750,000
This narrative report describes the method and approach to value in support of the conclusion and
contains the pertinent da(a gathered in our investigatiou of the market. If you have any questions, Paul
Fish or Gus Dal Colle would be pleased to discuss the valuation further.
ALTUS GROUP .
Respectfully submittaj~
TORONTO REAL EST :r£.A V1SORY S Y[CES INC.
Y !\Rpt\CooperRd_Stratford_ CNR Ccn!Ie_ 40l 521Appralsal_ CoopcrRd(CNR.Ftoperty)l'lNAL_20050l l$_ 40152.d..,.,
ALTUS GROUP - Toromo Real Estate Advisory Services .
5140Yonge Str<'.l>l StJite '20:X::,Toronto, Ontnrio 1"12N 6L7 / Telephone: 416 221-1200. Fax! 416 221 · ( 416
15
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ·
! .
!
I
)
I ! .
I

:,.•:_,J' ~-·:. .. •'•··. : . .._ ·~- .....
TAB No.
. ' .· .•••... I . . . ... ·. ~ ". . . . I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE NO.
1 llilRODUCTION ................ , .......................................•...... ,, ............................................ a,:--··"··,.··· 1
ANALYSIS & REC01\1MENDATIONS ............................. , ....................................... ,, ......... , ............ 2
2 DESrnIPTIVE SlJMMA.RY .............................................................................. , ................................. 4
LOCATION ............................................. : .......................................................................................... 4
SITE DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................... ·••••· ............... 6
LAND USE POLfCY ........................................................................................................................... 7
PROPOSED RETAIL USE .................................................................................................................... 8
3 .IIlGHEST & BEST USE ................................................................................................................. 10
LEGAL PBRMISSIBILLTY ................................................................................................................ 10
PHYSICALPOSSIBIUTY .................................................................................................................. 10
FrNANcrAL FBAsrsrUTY ................................................................................................................. 11
MAXlJv.lUM PROFITABILITY ............................................................................................................ 12
RETAILMARKETOVERVJEW .................................................................................................. : ...... 13
LOCAL RETAIL OVERVIBW ............................................................................................................ 15
HlGHEST&BESTUSECONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 19
4 v ALUATION ................. , .• ,.,,,, .. ,,,,, ......................................... , ........... t, ... ,~···••tt••••••F•••·••11•t••·•··"············••t9fP 20
.APPROACH ..................................................................................................................................... 20
COMPARISON OF TRANSACTIONS .................................................................................................. 20
COMPARATIVE RATING .................................................................................................................. 30
FINAL VALUBCONCLUSION ........................................................................................................... 32
***********
APPENDICES
"A" TERMSOFREFERENCE, SCOPEOFWORK
CONTINGENCIES & LlMITINO CONDITIONS, CERTIFICATION
"B" LoCATION MAPS, SITE SKETCHES, PHOTOGRAPHS
"C' CONFERENCB BOARD OF CANADA REPORT (WINTER 2005)
\!~,~{: @Hlm~~Jf~~f1'@:]g~'ftll~~~J!l{G"J~EQiL't
J..T~ ALTUS GROUP· GROUPE ALTUS
I
I L
I I
. j .· I ,
. \ I j
I
I
I ,
1.
I ~
I
I
1. l
I'. l
I i
·,
f . I I
I I
I
I
I
·.· .. ·.·.· ::'°"! : ...... -.. . . ...... : ;; .. . . J . .·· ....
68 :
A P P E N D IX "D"
... -~ ALTUS GROUP- GROUPt ALTUS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l·.
t
I
I
!"
i t
homos P. Rylett Limited Consulting Engineers
Rylett Engineering have been requested to provide an estimate of the expected cost
to build a building similar to the existing building on site. The purpose of this
estimate is to detennine an approximate contrjbuting value of the existing building.
A construction estimate has been p.eveloped for a building similar in size and
configuration, but without tb.e extra structural requ~rell:\ents of a heavy fabrication
shop.
. .
Presently there exists a 240,000 sq. ft building shell i.:omplete with two imericr
mezzanine floors. -Attached to this are two additions· which, v,..iJl be dismantled and
their rnatenal re-used for interior finished within the existing building. See attached
drawing and Schedule "A". The foundations and concrete floor will be used along
with the existin£- buildin£ for future develoomen!:. ~ .
I have calculated a separate cost for the contributory value of the existing building
and the contributory value of the re-usable material from the r.vo additions.
The basis of the estimate is as follows,
•-....... ------... ------u,.. .... .,,._. ••-- •• ·-••"" I
Site Preparation
. . .
0 estimated cost to prepare the site for building construction including
·.~·,.....,.,.--.~ -~~,-----~rvi cing and remov_aj__rg,~t,~tl~ls_. . ... :_ .. ________ ............ -... _. . _·· --·. ----·-·---~----~-- ... .
!· I 'I 2
) :
J~. -;;,;·=<!"-w;-"±"1·-,.,.,>- iiir.I"""''. .,... ..,,.,.....~,...........,...., . ........,_..,_._..._..._..... _ _.._~-.... ---..-,-T • -· .... ,. ..... _. -~ _....,,..,."'.....,. .... .:-.;-."T:~•·..--.·•••""''':·'*"""·-.. ..--.--·~-1--_,,.r- :, ';-;-.. >..<• .: .•. t .. , -· ··- •
Building Foundations
e estimated cost of building foundations for a building of this design.
.·~
! -------
1 5 Anderson Ave, St. Thomas, Ontario
519 633 1152 N5P 4A2 Fax 519 633 3340
:i;~~~~Qi&,~~~~Af~t~~~iJ~Bt
69
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.1 :-.! •"': .. 70
·I ! homos P. Rylett Limited Consulting Engineers
·j
I
' I
I
I . . • ... •
j
'·1
3 Concrete Floor
4 Structural Steel
• steel building frame with similar trusses and miscellaneous metals
5 Exterior Fin.lsh
• architectural block with insulation
• cast-in-place concrete and brick
6 Mezzanine
• includes construction of two mezzanine levels.
The above sections comprise the estimated cost of building a similar structure ar,id
do not include soft costs such as, design fees or developmen.t costs etc. The
estimate is also exclusive of any interior finishes to create retail space and any costs
associated with creating parking space.
These costs are also exclusive of interior finishes ( d..ry\vall partitions, suite
separations1 suite services and lighting) and of any parking additions.
It is understood that the existing structure is to be sand blasted and cleaned ~hnr the
window openings are ro be reopened a.i:id windows replaced. It is also understood
that the roof is to be replaced, exclusive of the structural steel frame.
The calculated value of the material to be re-used consists of brick, limestone
foundation blocks and original wood framing. These components are expected to
be used as decorative framing and finishing in the new development. The esdrnate
·is· detailed in Sch~dule B and is presented below:.. · · ·· ··· · _.. ........... ~-··-·-·- ·-~---~-t·
Contributory Value of Construction rYlaterials $171,909.49
"I 2 I ~' __.,. --~--------- .... -- ---·;· ...... .,. ·•' -~ .. ,.,,,"..,....,... ... _,....~.-.,.--~~~-~--=>-•-•~---......-.,...;,..,_,,., _____ ....,.,=
I .
15 Anderson Ave, St. Thomas, Ontario
519 633 1152 N5P 4A2 Fax 519 633 3340
''M~f,~g;:[9:~,g~tft,i!1J!§'.~!:ff£'.~ ________ ..:.,.__ __ __
I 71
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I l
i .
I
I
I
1 ·
I
RYLE TT ENGINEERING
BT THOMAS ONTARIO
COOPER BESSEMER DEVELOPMENT SITE
DOWNIE STREET
STRATFORD, ONTAAIO
CONTRIBUTORY VALUE OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
SCHEDULE B
10/3'.:l/OO
ITEM SCOPE . . . . . CPST. ./ .SCOPE
1
2
3
4.
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
:i.3
14.
J.5
BR:rCX:
L::CMES:rONE BLOCX
WOOD :FRJIXING
$14, UB. l.3
$42,734,. 95
l.882 l:Jlcigs $63,000.00
l.88B bldg $~0,500,00
~~1rr1:~~~T~AL:==c~o~S~T==~=========~=====-=====o=o==============="iF=====$~~~~~~=::~:~~=:7~2'.:91aII
LB
19
2orlG_R..A_ND_ _T O_T_1\.L _~ ..,....--~~------~~----~~------....... ~~-$-l_7_l._,9_0_9-.-~--.9
21
'22 FILE
23
24
10/30/?0
OS;J.O ?M
I -··- ~··-·······-·····-··-·~---··~-·-,.,, ......... ,.,.,. . ...,.-<.~.,_,_.......__ ______ ~--·-------.
I
I
I
I
I
--,-.----:·· .. ., ......... ·-····-·· .... ----·--·---.... ---·~ ....
: ,·
I
I
r
I I
;
I
I
I
I I

I
I
I
I
' I I·
t
I
I
I I
I I
r.
l
•1
I
I I
I.
I
ITEM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
'.I ,·· : . ! i!:'
RYLETT ENGINEERING
ST THOMAS
COOPER BESSEMER DEVELOPMENT SITE
OOWNI£ STREET
S'l'RATFORD, ON'l'A.RIO
CONSTRUCT'ION 8STIMATE BOILDING SHELL ONLY
SCHEDGL£ A.·
SCOPE
SITE PlIBPAll.J..TION'
FOOTINGS ARP FOUNDATIONS C/W ll..ElNPOR.Cll!G
CONCRETE FLOOR
STRUCTORA..L STEEL
Steel Building Frame; loo.g span roof trusllea
misc:el1aneoua metals
EX'XERIOR FI.NI SH
Architectura.;i. block k insulation
C:aet-tn-place concrete and brick
lo:!l!ZZ:Alt!~
BUILDING PER.MIT "
ONTARIO
COST / SCOPE
$390,000.00
$584.,500.00
$975,000.00
$4,875,000.00
$1,280,000.00
I sa-is,000,00
I
t
$80,561.50
I
!
~;11------+------11
18
COST $S,95J,S00.00
.......... _ ...... __ ---- .. . __ •••••• .!.. •••• __ ._ ...... ":f":'"". ··~ -
21
.n·
23,~G~R.AND":"'.'.':=_~T~O=TAL:----~~--~~------~--------~--~~~~"T""--~$-9-,-5-B-0-,-2~4-S-.~-O-j..,
24
·:is "Fili: · · · .. ··-·--·-· ----""·--... ·-·-- 1.- • .-t-_, ... ,~-........ ~.:-~ .• 11.:~-=~-~~~--~~,.,_...,,.._ ______ 1'1 / J:fi'Oo------ ·
26
27
12: SJ !?M
I I
· .. · :.-..
l
. l
'1
I ;
J
-J
.1
_J
l
_J
J
_J
J
l
j
/
/
OMB File No. LC.120027
ONTARIO
MUNICIPAL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF the Expropriations Act
R.S.O. 1990, c.-E.26, and IN THE MATTER OF AN
ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:
1353837 ONTARIO INC.
and
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF STRATFORD
.RESPONDING MOTION RECORD.
/
Claimant
Respondent
GOWLING LAFLEUR HENDERSON LLP
Barristers & Solicitors
50 Queen Stre(:lt North,
Suite 1020, P.O. Box 2248
Kitchener ON N2H 6M2
Tel: 519-576-6910
Fax: 519-576-6361
John S. Doherty (#24491 G)
Tel: 519-575-7518
Fax: 519-571-5018
john.doherty@gowlings.com
Roberto D. Aburto (#600171)
Tel: 519-575-7508 ·
Fax: 519-571-5008
roberto.aburto@gowlings.com
Lawyers for the Claimant
I
I
;
I
I.
_,
I
I
..i
I
i :
...i
I
i
.J
I
I
...;
I
.J
I
I
.J'
I
I
-'
i
_J
ONTARIO
MUNICIPAL BOARD
OMB File No. LC120027
IN THE MATTER OF the Expropriations Act
R.S.O. 1990, c. E.26, and IN THE MATTER OF AN
ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:
1353837 ONTARIO INC.
Claimant
and
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF STRATFORD
Respondent
INDEX
Tab Page No.
1 Affidavit of Lawrence Ryan sworn March 19, 2013 .............................................. 1-3
!
- !
. i t .
i;
' ! ~
.i •
J
i
.J
!
i ....
DECEMBER 14, 2009 1353837 ONTARIO INC. V CITY OF STRATFORD RONALD. SHAW
Page 1
(Formerly Kitchener
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
1353837 ONTARIO INC.,
Applicant,
- and -
.THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF STRATFORD,
Respondent.
-- This is the Cross-Examination of ;,·B@l'dl\~~~W~ on his
affidavits (sworn 21 October 2009 and 8 December 2009),
held at City Hall Annex, 82 Erie Street, 1st Floor,
Stratford, Ontario, on the 14th day of December,, 2009.
DISK
ENCLOSED
(416) 865-9339
www.stenographers-com
Atchison & Denman Court Reporting
155 University Avenue, Suite 302
(800} 250-9059
Toronto, ON Canada
'}
DECEMBER 14, 2009
1
2
3
4

6
7
8
APPEARANCES:
1353837 ONTARIO INC. V CITY.OF STRATFORD RONALD SHAW
Page 2
For the Respondent
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
INDEX OF EXHIBITS
PAGE NO.
Page 4 ·
EXHIBIT NO. 1: City of Stratford's Brownfialds 19
Community Improvement Plan document.
EXHIBIT NO. 2: Copy of concept plan by Spriet 40
Associates.
l. 1~ 11
Also Present:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
EXHIBIT NO. 3: December 8 Libro Credit letter. 58
!
t
.)
1
l
., .
l
.)
.l
2
13
4
15
16
17
18
19
0
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
'~Wfiihge':ij~ff:
Page 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF EXAMINATIONS: PAGE NO.
aof!fi~UP:{s~Vi!;''.i:'.eiffl@~~............................. 6
:¢6Q~~n~~~,~1i~Ft;1:1!lft:r~~l~J,:~~~~f\A't~J~f~gl~ s
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
INDEX OF REFUSALS 13
Refusals are noted by "R/F" and are found on the following 14
pages: 15, 16,51,54,57,66-68,81,83. 15
16
INDEX OF ADVISEMENTS 17
Under Advisements are noted by "U/A" and are found on the 18
following pages: 12, 13, 14, 16, 20, 21, 26, 27, 34-36, 40, 19
43, 45, 53, 55-58, 62, 64, 65, 71, 78, 85. 20
21
22
23 23
EXHIBIT NO. 5: December 10, 2009, memo from Dr. 69
Shipley.
EXHIBIT NO. 6: December 10, 2009, memo from Mr. 70
Doherty.
EXHIBIT NO. 7: Letter dated August 7, 2002. 82
EXHIBIT NO. 8: April 13, 2005, letterfrom Mr. 84
Hayter.
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
INDEX OF EXHIBITS
PAGE NO.
EXHIBIT NO. 9: Offer from Erie Street Consortium
dated April 14, 2005.
EXHIBIT NO. 10: (Not identified). 85
EXHIBIT NO. 11: December 24, 2008, letter.
Page 5
84
85
I
24 24 ~
25 25 i'
.::'-~~.:. ...~ ;::x::.J. . ..._~.._._. ....... •:~i:..-.. ·~ --c::.....:.....-=.:.~-....... ..,_. ........... _. .. ~~,....-..:,:::,_.i.:.....--,~..;-;...,•-=i..:.-..:~-~..;.'\.4::.::-;....~ .. ~v-._,.::.·-·. ...~. ·..:....u.:.<:.~;.~.~,:...,.:..•-~ .:~ ........~ . . -~ ......_.._~·.;........:,,·..:. _._...,.~r.:-....,.•--,.~. .: ;,. .• ~:...;•:.... ... :..-v~· • ..::..-e..:..~.;;.."""' ... :.t .., .~, ........: :Ji
(416) 865-9339
www.stenographers.com
Atchison & Dernnan Court Reporting
155 University Avenue, Suite 302
2 (Pages 2 to 5)
{800) 250-9059
Toronto, ON Canada
i
I
II l
i \
j
i I ; I
l
( I
j !
l
.i
! I
j .\
t'
t
i l "· ' !
' I
! t ' ) ) :
~
'' 1·
/ I
. I ! )
J:
.. I
' l !) ... '
-'
I '")
..J
I ,.J
_,:
j
_.i
i:
(
)
_;
DECEMBER ~~, 2009 1353837 ONTARIO INC. V CITY OF STRATFORD RONALD SHAW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1.8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 54
portion of the land that you're showing the Stratford
Institute being located on; isn't that the case.
A. I understand that to be the case.
154 a. So, the •y• is obviously a participant in
the master planning process if they are going to sell a
portion of their lands to accommodate it?
A. We have been in discussions with the •y•,
yes.
155 Q. And do you know whether - I take it that
the library would remain in City ownership? Would that be
a City asset?
A. It would be a City asset. That's the
nollllal course with a libraiy.
156 Q. Does the City have a written policy
dealing with the disposition of City-owned lands?
R/F MR. HILL: I don't see how thafs relevant to
the issues on this application.
BY MR. SUNDAY:
1 fSl a. Mr. Shaw, you're aware that there was a
large mortgage against the expropriated lands?
A. Yes, I'm aware.
MR. HILI..: We know there was a face amount of
$5 million on a mortgage document.
BY MR. SUNDAY:
158 a. Are you aware of the principal and
Page 55
interest that was _outstanding as of June 15th, 2009?
A. I would have to go back and check the file
to see what we have.
MR. SUNDAY: So, counsel, if you can let us
know what your client tells you on that and advise us?
U/A MR. HILL: We'll take that under advisement as
well.
BY MR. SUNDAY:
159 a. Mr. Shaw, are you aware that the mortgagee
is threatening to act on personal guarantees and to
enforce against collateral security with respect to the
mortgage?
A. I'm aware that there is an action being
taken, yes.
MR. HILL: We only just became aware of that
from infonnation you provided on Friday.
THE DEPONENT: Thars correct.
BY MR. SUNDAY:
160 a. And you are aware that the mortgagee is
threatening to institute ban~ptcy proceedings against
the principal of 135 and all of his companies?
A. ·We've just become aware.
MR. HILL: And I'm not sure we are aware of
all those details. I know we've got a voice mail message
from their counsel, Mr. Doherty, which was produced to us
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 56
by you on Friday, but other than that -
THE DEPONENT: So, ifs whatever is In that
voice mall I would be aware of.
BY MR. SUNDAY:
161 Q. Mr. Shaw, the City made a prior offer to
purchase the expropriated lands in April of 2008; is that
right?
A. Yes. That was attached to one of our
documents.
162 a. And that offer was for $5 million?
A. Yes.
163 a. And was made through a law firm?
A. Yes, it was.
'~.~~:· Q;· f:W~!ih~·~wti!l'!f>~~~!~oH~tfWiY•
··'miRm!~~1~·t«i~~1mmftt!~gil!lil:g!f!@·
·~t~:, (Mf'i~lm.~~%t)';~~fi\~Tu!l1'Qi',f!tfitt:i~~m!:!t~1
:E~J~•(@ti!11!iiml!fl'il.i'lfigl{i~m~~~
~~ll»?i~~~yq:
1as: :.m '~\'§n~w.~~JIQ!!rit~~Ii1'fflm'i1
'~Pil~~m(~t!!M~f~~l!i'§1!1?1!!i'ffi~mrYJ:~m91!mimm'
·.Mr~~Jtiwmiilt'•1m~mg~tmim:!Pim~€i1:mi.¥~s1
1lm!~Jp,lift\~g~~~I~[@Pl:'f~!f~'lff§.itii~l~'Pi:!@i~~1
,~~Jat1~aarn~!ifJiil1it\~~mr~~anm?.:<~1m1s:>11ii:'!@£JJ:l9
P!ll:rn~!tlV,~lil'v9~~~~~~~mitfm?P:@t~lllf~[l]!~~6~:
·~19!'.il't~ii~~·:1t~2ri1?:~b1-m~11ittit~9'.1Int~lt1
Page 57
'gt]~~?'
i:IZ4: 'Mai'1 BJ1£(.t;i!~W~tnim~~1~n~tm'n~~r1g1~m:~9t
'1Mtt1§~N.Jl!i~~l;l'i~Qμ~fl~~f~1:~1[l!~~ttB~,
'~!!MlW~~ftn1~$§~!9fi!Q!1~PYli?tir~~l·1eRi'!!!§.~'.!l19r!6~
1mn~1Jm9Jltf!l:tmgRtOOt:If:@fsQ!f!ii'.i'Q~~,~™~Yi'fi@'~~?ll~~1~!il~;
l~[~oo:1,~T!iay£9t~fi~~~!\1~lii1[~§flflm~~
'J'Jl'R, '\M~g1fili~rI:~g1lll~Kil~lsQM:f~rrlA'®~~~l:t~
BY MR. SUNDAY:
166 Q. Has the City received any written or
unwritten offers from the mortgagee to address their
claims as an owner in the expropriation?
MR. HILL: How is that relevant on this
possession application?
MR. SUNDAY: I think it goes to the issue of
the harm that's coming to life in tenns of the proceedings
that have been instituted by!ft~p,qi?tlg!' So, we would like
to understaild if there is any offers or agreements In
place between the City and the mortgagee.
R/F MR. HILL: I don't agree that that is an Issue
thafs relevant in the application.
MR. SUNDAY: We would also like to know has
the City paid any compensation to the mortgagee in
relation to the expropriation to date?
U/A MR. HILL: We'll take that under advisement as
well
15 (Pages 54 to 57)
{416) 865-9339
www.stenographers.com
Atchison & Denman Court Reporting
155 University Avenue, Suite 302
(800) 250-9059
Toronto, ON Canada
·)
;.
l - \
;; · 1 .
i ::j
-(
..
I ·'
·!
I
I
,' -\
;
I I.
DECEMBER 14, 2009 1353837 ONTARIO INC. V CITY O~ STRATFORD RONALD SHAW
1'
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 6&
relevant to the issue of possession but we'll take it 1
under advisement. 2
MR. SUNDAY: It's relevant to the issue of Mr. 3
Bower's appraisal and its failure to consider prior 4
offers, prior offers that were not made in the context of 5
an expropriation and a prior offer where the City was 6
concealing Its identity to have the benefit of acting as 7
if it were a party that did not have the expropriation 8
power. So, that's why it's relevant, council. 9
MR. HIU.: It's our information that we 10
believe Mr. Ryan became aware it was from the City in any 11
event 12
BY MR. SUNDAY: 13
195 0. Now, Mr. Shaw, do you agree that the offer 14
cl $5 million was a fair price? 15
RJF MR. HILL: Don't answer the question. 16
BY MR.SUNDAY: 17
196 0. Sir, I put it to you that what you offered 18
you had already characterized as a fair price. 19
MR. HIU.: Do you want to take us to the 20
reference you're referring to? 21
BY MR. SUNDAY: 22
197 a. Well, I would like to have this witness's 23
answer without the benefit of looking at his past 24
statement. Do you agree that $5 million. If It had been 25
Page 67
1 accepted, the City would have felt lt had paid a fair 1
2 price for the lands? 2
Page 68
stands by that statement.
R/F MR. HILL: I don't see how that's a relevant
question for the issues on this application. You've get
an expert who says there were certain deficiencies which
he has raised in his report relating to Mr. Bower's
report. We have responded to that It's our expert
saying it's a valid appraisal and the issue on the
application is the issues raised by your expert in his
report It's not - this is not a compensation hearing
where we're going into a full-blown history of the entire
appraisal process.
MR. SUNDAY: If we could go off the record for
a few minutes.
- Recess at 12:34 p.m.
- Upon Resuming at 1 :05 p.m.
BY MR. SUNDAY:
200 a. Counsel, I just realized that some of the
documents that we have referred to in this examination we
haven't marked as exhibits.
In the supplementary - second supplementary
affidavit from Mr. Ryan, the exhibits for that, we have a
properly bound copy of thaL It's the same affidavit that
we provided you on Friday.
MR. HILL: On Friday.
MR. SUNDAY: But that record has the pages
Page 69
numbered and a table of contents.
MR. HILL: This is the one we're objecting
3 R/F MR. HILL: Don't answer the question. It's 3 to -
4 not relevant 4 MA. SUNDAY: Right.
5 BY MR. SUNDAY: 5 MA. HILL: - and reserving our rights with
6 198 Q. Sir, if 1 could tum you to your affidavit 6 respect to.
~ of Feb~~~~~; ~~:~:.~~g:,h!~~n=~fforts ~ '~~h'~l~~l~t~illf~i~~~illi111~l~}
9 to acquire the Cooper site. Given the long history of 9 ':t[®~~Jm~jj[4il
1 o litigation between the parties, and in order to secure a 1 o ~tiji.:j)~l'j~;[ilMll':i~'f@P@!~~;
1 1 fair price, the City used an agent for the purpose of 11 MR. SUNDAY: And we have referred to the
12 making a written offer to purchase the Cooper site from 12 memorandum from Dr. Shipley dated December 10, 2009. If
13 135. The City offered to pay $5 million for the site, 13 we could mark that as Exhibit 5.
14 subject to reviewing 1he site, for among other things, 14 EXHIBIT NO. 5: December 10, 2009, memo from
15 environmental issues." 15 Dr. Shipley.
16 Now, sir, are you resiling from this statement 16 MR. HILL: This Is all for identification
17 that $5 million as offered from the City's point of view 17 purposes obviously we're agreeing to mark it
18 would have been a fair price? 18 MR. SUNDAY: Well, no. The witness said that
19 MR. Hill: Well, it doesn't say that that 19 he had seen this memorandum from Mr. Wilson, sony, Dr.
I I
20 WC!Uld be a fair price because it was subject to conditions 20 Shipley. ~
21 for an environmental inspection. 21 MR. HILL: Well, that's after you provided it i
22 BY MR. SUNDAY: 22 to us on Friday. It isn't like it's something - l
23 199 Q. I have read the full passage to him and I 23 MR. SUNDAY: It is dated December 10th, 2009, ~
24 read that portion as well, counsel, and I'm not misleading 24 counsel. ~
25 the witness on that point I'm asking him whether he 25 MR. HILL: I understand that but I'm just t
~~~-~-,::r..~~'""C:>ll';Q..~~----."C~~-..S:..~1.1~~ ...... ~~ ....... .,._~~ .. ~~~t!ol.~ .. -....~~"'--~~--~":i.~~i
(416) 865-9339
www.stenographers.com
Atchison & Denman Court Reporting
155 University Avenue, Suite 302
18 (Pages 66 to 69)
(800) 250-9059
Toronto, ON Canada
STRATFORD RESORT AND SPA
Meeting Held: April 25th, 1996 at 7:30 P.M.
To whom was a feasibility study given to obtain sufficient funding to carry out the
development of lands in Stratford (supply copy)?
What is the total value of monies required to carry out this development, broken down
as follows:
Soft costs (e.g.
Hard costs
architectural
engineering
loan fees
interest
land
contaminated soil cleanup
construction
supplies/furniture/fixtures/equipment
business start up, wages, etc.
On what cash flow is the loan/mortgage being relied upon (supply copy)?
Thi• is Exh.ibiI ..•••• 61.2: ........... referred to in tf.e
affidavit of ......•. £°!'" ... tJ.~·····-
swom lbefore;J th.is ...•....... :;?'J:: ...... ;·~······b•
day OJ········'7}·~····· .................. ,'?.~ -
1 ...............................................................................
A COi'·~:.-1JSSlONER. EiC.
Please supply a copy of the letters issued to lender(s) detailing the loan/mortgage
request for this project.
What is the present status of the mortgage loan required for this project?
Who has approved in content the feasibility study being used to obtain the long term
commitment for the mortgage needed to take out the interim financing?
What is the total value of equity required by 1101644 Ontario Limited to secure the
mortgage commitment?
How is the equity being injected into the company?
2
Is there an appraisal by an AACI appraiser on the present value of land and on the
business once it reached its break-even poinUcan I have a copy?
What is the net profit to be received and corresponding return on investment?
What are the total expenses to date against this project (give list)?
Of these expenses, which ones are paid, who paid and how (give copies of cancelled
cheques)?
How are the outstanding payables to be paid and when?
3
--------·-------·-·-----·-- -----·------·--- - -·
Is anyone to sign personally for funds borrowed for this project? If so, who?
What items have been removed from site to date?
What monies have been paid for these items?
Where is this money now?
What resolutions are issued as of today (give copies)?
4
Has a written commitment for funding, including the required mortgage, been issued to
date (if so, give copy)? If not, why is demolition being carried out?
Has there ever been any meeting held by the shareholders for which I was not present?
If so, when and what was discussed and decided?
Has there ever been a directors meeting held for which I was not present? If so, when
and what was discussed and decided?

Offline

 

#2 2014-01-14 08:57:47

Stratfordian
Member
Registered: 2011-11-11
Posts: 127

Re: New Developements

What the hell is this crap supposed to mean to anyone?  Who are you Tommy, and why should we care?

Offline

 

#3 2014-01-14 22:23:56

mr.nelson
Member
Registered: 2008-02-06
Posts: 416

Re: New Developements

I also attached a series of questions that was put to the Archie Mclellan Group of guys.
Lawrence Ryan made these series of question up. I wanted Bill Nelson to put them on ltalkStratford
but he refused for some reason or another. Now I hope they surface on ltalkStratford..

First of all you never talked to me, you talked to my 13 year old boy twice. He did not know who you were you never left any contact information.

Second all this jumbled document is clearly scanned on to a computer and the text program never comprehended half the words Tommy, which is not your name, if you want to post a legal document you should have talked directly to me, not my son

Last edited by mr.nelson (2014-01-14 22:29:30)


You Can't Fix Stupid!

Offline

 

#4 2014-01-15 15:25:11

Steel
Member
Registered: 2008-02-16
Posts: 2521

Re: New Developements

This post resembles the jumbled mind of Larry. It is also the way a building looks when built by someone that insists they don't need permits.

Offline

 

#5 2014-01-16 10:45:52

Stratfordian
Member
Registered: 2011-11-11
Posts: 127

Re: New Developements

Steel wrote:

This post resembles the jumbled mind of Larry. It is also the way a building looks when built by someone that insists they don't need permits.

lol

Offline

 


Board footer

Powered by PunBB
© Copyright 2002–2008 PunBB