FOLLOWING THE FINDINGS OF THE SCC
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
Court File No.: [To be assigned]
NOTICE TO READER: The following is a draft from John Tait for transparency to claimants and it is in the queue for approval.
BETWEEN:
Representative plaintive JOHN TAIT and family
on their own behalf and on behalf of all members of the proposed Class
Plaintiff(s)
- and -
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SEVERN and ELECTED OFFICIALS
(Defendants)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM (Class Proceeding)
A. Nature of the Proceeding
1. This is a proposed class proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 brought on behalf of all private landowners in the Township of Severn whose properties were designated as watershed /wetland zones/ or “Greenland” zones. Without justifiable notice, lawful authority, compensation or even tax reductions.
2. The Plaintiffs seek damages for constructive taking (de facto expropriation), misfeasance in public office, breach of procedural fairness, negligence, nuisance, and breach of statutory duty.
B. The Class
3. The proposed Class is defined as:
"All persons who own property in the Township of Severn that was subject to a watershed, wetland, Greenland or similar environmental protection designation imposed without
notice or compensation."
4. The number of Class members is estimated to be in the hundreds.
5. Common issues predominate, including:
- Whether the Township's actions constitute a constructive taking under the Annapolis test.
- Whether the Township acted unlawfully or in breach of procedural fairness.
- Whether Class members are entitled to damages and, if so, how they should be calculated.
Page 1
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
C. Representative Plaintiff
6. The Representative Plaintiff is a landowner in the Township of Severn whose property was
subject to such a designation in or about 2010 without prior notice, consent, or compensation.
7. The Representative Plaintiff's claims are typical of the Class and they will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the Class.
D. Overview of the Claim
8. The Township's unilateral imposition of watershed and wetland overlays on private lands, without disclosure, public process, or statutory compliance, has deprived Class members of reasonable and economic uses of their properties.
9. This conduct amounts to a constructive taking requiring full compensation, as clarified by the Supreme Court of Canada in Annapolis Group Inc. v. Halifax Regional Municipality, 2022 SCC 36.
E. Facts
10. Prior to the greenland designations, “Class Members” properties were zoned for residential, agricultural, recreational, and residents were respectful of known “wetland zones.” Provided at purchase. Mixed uses were possible with simple respectful justifiable variances, without material restriction. Questionable greenland overlays and total encumbrances are not addressed or conveyed to landowners until they inquire about proposals.
11. In or about 2010, the Township, acting alone or with the relevant Conservation Authority, imposed watershed wetland or greenland restrictions, thereby:
- prohibiting construction, grading, vegetation removal, or other economic activities;
- reducing market value by tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars per property. The Taits
have been compelled to submit a “tort lacuna” and a “contract” allowing neighboring residents the use of a part of the Tait property for safety. This is necessary to protect the Tait family from liability and neighboring residents while seeking resolve. Opportunity for that resolve was initiated by the Taits but refused.
12. The Township and its elected officials failed to:
- provide any reasonable statutory notice to landowners regarding the egregious damage to properties;
- hold well advertised transparent public hearings.
- simply did not advise us in our property tax receipts of the pitfalls.
- follow the Planning Act or Conservation Authorities Act procedures;
- provide any compensation or even tax reductions.
- generally failed to protect those who elected them.
- remove from private property the watershed/greenland designation.
F. Causes of Action
13. Constructive Taking (De Facto Expropriation)
The Township's designation meets the Annapolis two-part test:
- Acquisition of a beneficial interest or public benefit from private property (environmental preservation and public use). Gaining favor and recognition from not resisting federal government overreaching directives.
- Deprivation of all reasonable or economic uses by the private owner.
2. Misfeasance in Public Office and breaching common tort law principles.
14. The Township and elected officials acted with knowledge or reckless indifference to the illegality of its actions and the foreseeable personal harm to landowners.
Page 2
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
3. Breach of Procedural Fairness and Natural Justice
15. The Township failed to afford affected landowners proper notice of losses and reports showing the justification for this encumbrance to be heard before restricting property rights.
4. Negligence
16. The Township breached its duty of care by applying designations without lawful authority or proper environmental basis.
5. Nuisance
17. The Township's interference with landowners' rights constitutes a substantial and unreasonable interference with use and enjoyment.
6. Breach of Statutory Duty
18. The Township failed to comply with statutory requirements under Ontario planning and conservation laws.
G. Relief Sought
The Plaintiff claims, on behalf of themselves and the Class:
1. Certification of this action as a class proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.
2. A declaration that the watershed/wetland designations constitute a constructive taking.
3. An order directing the Defendant to pay:
- Compensation equal to the market value loss per property;
- Consequential damages for lost use and opportunity;
- General damages for nuisance and breach of rights;
- Punitive damages.
4. Pre- and post-judgment interest under the Courts of Justice Act.
5. Costs of the action on a substantial indemnity basis.
6. Such further relief as this Honorable Court deems just.
H. Place of Trial
The Plaintiff proposes that this action be tried at Barrie, Ontario.
Date: undetermined
Lawyer:
Address:
Phone / Email:
Lawyer for the Plaintiffs:
Page 3
I JOHN TAIT your representative plaintiff is advised by legal advisors to continue in the manner prescribed by law. The affected landowners, of which there are many in the “Municipality of Severn” alone, MUST be notified of the egregious actions by elected officials that have allowed this to happen. REGISTER TODAY Stand up for your rights Canadian.
HELP US TO INFORM ALL OF OUR FELLOW LANDOWNERS TO JOIN OUR LAWSUIT TO RECOUP THEIR POTENTIAL $100,000 DOLLAR LOSS. REGISTER TODAY and call John Tait 416 9380737 info.watersheddebale@gmail.com