You are not logged in.

#31 2013-05-10 10:02:12

rankinfile
Moderator
Registered: 2007-12-28
Posts: 843

Re: The City of Stratford is facing a $25-million statement of claim

OK---did ye have anyone curious enough to listen in on the teleconference????  It was two week ago....but no news on this exciting event.  Why not????????

Offline

 

#32 2013-06-26 03:58:15

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

Re: The City of Stratford is facing a $25-million statement of claim

Ontario Municipal Board Decision and Order 20130021

http://www.omb.gov.on.ca/e-decisions/lc … 1-2013.pdf


You Can't Fix Stupid!

Offline

 

#33 2013-06-26 12:46:33

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

Re: The City of Stratford is facing a $25-million statement of claim

It seems Larry the Loser has lost yet again. OMB found for the City yet again.

Offline

 

#34 2013-06-27 22:01:44

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

Re: The City of Stratford is facing a $25-million statement of claim

Press Release dated June 27, 2013

Ryan’s Claims Not Dismissed

The OMB directs in their Order dated June 21, 2013, how and by whom all Ryan’s claims will be heard. The OMB did not deal with the merits of the various claims by Ryan, but rather, a procedure to hear all evidence to deal with the merits.  The OMB did not dismiss any of Ryan’s claims, but rather split the claims between the OMB and Superior Court.

In 2002 the City started an action against Ryan, in Superior Court, requesting an Order that the City was   the true owner of the St Patrick St Parking lot. That action has not yet been heard. The OMB directed that part of the OMB claim with respect to ownership of the St Patrick St parking lot is to be heard by the Superior Court. To facilitate this split of the claim, the OMB  ordered  that the OMB claim filed by Ryan , be amended and further ordered  the City to file their Reply.

The OMB dismissed Ryan’s request for interim costs to cover the expense of consultants at this stage, on the basis that additional information with respect to this request must be provided.  The OMB did confirm that legal costs of  the Superior Court can be claimed in the OMB matter.  It is a requirement pursuant to the Expropriation Act that Ryan’s legal and consulting costs are to be paid by the City.  The benefit to the City, in paying these costs as they are incurred  will be to reduce the accruing interest, which the City must also pay while they remain unpaid.

The OMB has also instructed both parties to contact the Board to arrange for a teleconference to finalize the terms of a procedural order. This procedural order will include a timetable to complete the discovery process leading to the hearing.

-30-

Lawrence Ryan   
519 847 5647


You Can't Fix Stupid!

Offline

 

#35 2013-06-27 23:26:18

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

Re: The City of Stratford is facing a $25-million statement of claim

yeah nelson...he gets another kick at the can in appeal.....it will have the same outcome

Offline

 

#36 2013-06-29 17:47:42

spankie
Member
Registered: 2008-01-01
Posts: 1350

Re: The City of Stratford is facing a $25-million statement of claim

Can we not run this idiot out of town once and for all. I couldn't do anything with the site for ten years but now that it's got some use I should get paid more. Piss off.

Offline

 

#37 2013-08-19 19:35:28

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

Re: The City of Stratford is facing a $25-million statement of claim

Former Cooper site owner quantifies claims, more to come    


Donal O'Connor

By Donal O'Connor, The Beacon Herald

Monday, August 19, 2013 5:30:30 EDT PM



A revised statement of claim filed with the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) seeks a total of more than $79.5 million in compensation from the City of Stratford in connection with the expropriation of the Cooper land once owned by Lawrence Ryan.

The amended claim repeats Ryan’s earlier bid for $25 million in market value compensation but this time quantifies, as directed by the OMB, his company’s claims associated with a number of perceived business losses and damages resulting from the municipality’s actions.

In an interview Monday, Ryan said the claim seeks $9.5 million for the contributory value of the building shell, $7.5 million for the replacement cost of the shell, $8 million for delay damages, $14 million for disturbance damages and special damages, $15 million for business loss and $500,000 for difficulties in relocation.

Still to be quantified are construction income and equity, executive and staff time, he said.

Ryan said the amended claim quantifying the various items that had been previously listed follows the OMB’s order of June 21.

Mayor Dan Mathieson acknowledged Ryan is seeking “a large sum of money,” adding that city hall doesn’t feel his claim represents with any accuracy what’s covered by the Expropriations Act.

City solicitors will be considering the claim and advising on a response.

The OMB heard motions from Ryan’s legal council and from city solicitors April 30 and May 1.

In its order, the OMB gave Ryan 45 days to serve and file an amended notice of arbitration and statement. It set limits on what could be included in the statement of claim and ordered the municipality to reply within 45 days of receiving it.

Ryan received an initial $4.5 million from the municipality for the expropriated land, part of which now houses the Stratford Campus of the University of Waterloo. But under the Expropriations Act, the former owner of the site is entitled to seek further compensation in an arbitration process.

The city expropriated the land from Ryan and his numbered Ontario company in 2009.

A date has not been set for the next OMB hearing.


You Can't Fix Stupid!

Offline

 

#38 2013-08-22 08:23:44

rankinfile
Moderator
Registered: 2007-12-28
Posts: 843

Re: The City of Stratford is facing a $25-million statement of claim

Ahhh....I think he should have gone for an even $100 Million!!!

Offline

 

#39 2013-08-26 20:48:30

spankie
Member
Registered: 2008-01-01
Posts: 1350

Re: The City of Stratford is facing a $25-million statement of claim

What a lunatic. He wants to replace the shell. Well it's still there. So then what he wants to move it? Go right ahead at your cost. Contributory value of the shell? What the hell's that mean? Delay damages? Delay of what? He never did anything and any delays where caused by issues he did not correct. Disturbance damage? What cause he's mentally disturbed? Business loss? How can you have business lose when there was nothing being built on the site and the shell was unsafe to be used as is. Difficulties in relocating? Again what was he relocating? Construction income? HE BUILT NOTHING!!!! Staff time? What he wants to pay himself?

WHY IS THE OMB EVEN LISTENING TO THIS JACKASS.

Offline

 

#40 2013-10-02 17:18:22

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

Re: The City of Stratford is facing a $25-million statement of claim

Ontario Municipal Board
Commission des affaires municipales de l’Ontario

ISSUE DATE:

September 24, 2013

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY LYNDA TANAKA ON SEPTEMBER 9, 2013 AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

INTRODUCTION

[1] A teleconference on September 9, 2013 was held to resolve a dispute between the parties flowing from the Board’s direction in its order issued June 21, 2013. The Board had ordered that the Notice of Arbitration and Statement of Claim ("Original Pleading") be struck and 1353837 Ontario Inc. (the "Claimant") was given 45 days to file an Amended Notice of Arbitration and Statement of Claim ("Amended Pleading"). The Claimant did so but the Corporation of the City of Stratford ("City") counsel took the position that the Amended Pleading did not respect the Board’s order. Both parties filed correspondence setting out in detail their positions in the dispute. The correspondence was exchanged on various dates in August 2013 and was reviewed by the Board but not marked as exhibits.



[2] The Board is satisfied that the Amended Pleading represents the Claimant’s best efforts to conform to the Board’s order and does eliminate the claim for compensation by the Claimant as owner of the Disputed Lands. The theory of the Claimant’s case, as described in both the Original and the Amended Pleadings, and the claims for compensation involve the history of the Disputed Lands as well as that of the Expropriated Lands. There is sufficient particularity in the Amended Pleading that the City can plead its admissions and denials, as well as its allegations of any legal impediments to any elements of the claim, including jurisdiction.


[3] The Board rejects the City’s submission that the Amended Pleading, in setting out the claims for compensation and remedies, is too vague or lacking in particularity such that the City cannot plead or instruct its expert witnesses. Nor it is unreasonable for the Claimant to reserve to itself the room to further particularize the quantum of the claims since there is so much disagreement about the history of the Expropriated Lands and lands in the vicinity including the Disputed Lands. The Board anticipates that the discovery process will assist both parties in narrowing the dispute.


[4] With respect to the City’s concerns as to paragraph 402(n) of the Amended Pleading, Claimant’s counsel has specified that this is a claim for an order to waive the implied undertaking Rule contained in the Rules of Civil Procedure. The City’s counsel was content with that specification as to the paragraph.


[5] With respect to the claim of interim costs in paragraph 401, each counsel expressed their competing interpretations of the Board’s order of June 21, 2013 on this topic. The Board will not rule at this time on the conflicting interpretations. The City has sufficient information to plead its position that the Board has no such jurisdiction and has protected its right to do so by raising the issue at this time.


[6] The City points out that in the Amended Pleading, only 12 of the paragraphs of the Original Pleading have been deleted and 17 have been added. The Original Pleading was served over a year ago.

ORDER

[7] The Board orders that the City serve and file its Reply within 25 days, or on or before October 4, 2013.



"Lynda Tanaka"



LYNDA TANAKA



EXECUTIVE CHAIR


You Can't Fix Stupid!

Offline

 

#41 2013-10-05 09:30:50

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

Re: The City of Stratford is facing a $25-million statement of claim

So when the City files...and it will....and Larry loses yet again....and he will.....when will the OMB take the position that Loser Larry is acting in a frivolous manner and in filing claim after claim is simply clogging the OMB system with Nonsense and therefore deny any further applications from him or his associates in this matter?

Offline

 

#42 2013-10-05 15:11:15

rankinfile
Moderator
Registered: 2007-12-28
Posts: 843

Re: The City of Stratford is facing a $25-million statement of claim

Unfortunately I think you will find that the OMB is very reluctant to tread on any toes and find a claimant to be frivolous in presenting arguments before the tribunal.  After all, it is an appeal tribunal, and when "facts" are argued, there are normally at least two sides to most situations, facts not with standing.  And with lawyers being paid big bucks, it interesting to see them state "... and we argue this fact, and this fact, and if you don't buy that argument, then we plead that....."

However, not withstanding the above....I agree.....kick his but to the curb!!!

Offline

 


Board footer

Powered by PunBB
© Copyright 2002–2008 PunBB