LDN20110711DC
We have known for a while now that the court battle between Strathroy-Caradoc and Adelaide Metcalfe Township over no servicing agreement for the Centre Road corridor has been a contentious one, but now this strained relationship is pretty much switching to non-existent.
A legal tussle between the two has now hit the lawsuit road, as Adelaide Metcalfe is suing Strathroy-Caradoc for alleged misuse of public power in a $50 million lawsuit revolving around a development disagreement.
At its core, Adelaide Metcalfe claims that Strathroy-Caradoc has abused its authority, aiming to discredit them in the community’s eyes and obstruct economic growth opportunities. The conflict primarily centers on a commercial area outside Strathroy, where the municipalities have a history of contention over sewer and water services.
The lawsuit outlines multiple claims against Strathroy. Apart from the abuse of public power, Adelaide Metcalfe is pursuing alternative causes, including breach of duty to act in good faith and intentional interference with economic relations, each seeking $50 million in damages. Additionally, accusations of negligent misrepresentations are made, also seeking $50 million in damages.
The filed statement of claim, a hefty 21-page document, was submitted to the London court on December 18. As of now, Strathroy-Caradoc has yet to respond with a statement of defense, but Mayor Colin Grantham did officially respond to myFM.
Mayor Grantham stated “The Corporation of the Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc is aware of the lawsuit commenced by the Township of Adelaide Metcalfe. The statement of claim for this lawsuit was served just prior to the holidays. Strathroy-Caradoc has retained legal counsel and, after the matter is considered by Council, I fully expect the Municipality to respond to the allegations outlined in the proceedings within the timeframe given to deliver a defense. There is no contract between Strathroy-Caradoc and Adelaide Metcalfe for the provision of water and sewage treatment services. The former servicing contract expired in 2018, and a 6-month extension expired in 2019. The contract dispute is already before the courts, and this lawsuit is a renewed attempt to continue benefiting from a contract that no longer exists.”
myFM has reached out to Adelaide Metcalfe and Mayor Sue Clark responded “Adelaide Metcalfe does not have any comment at this time.”
It’s essential to note that the claims and allegations presented by both parties remain untested in court. The lawsuit revolves around an agreement between the municipalities to share water and sewer services along a commercial corridor for over 15 years, a pivotal area for commercial and industrial development according to Adelaide Metcalfe’s claims.
The history of disputes between Adelaide Metcalfe and Strathroy dates back to the late 1990s concerning the development along this commercial corridor on Centre Road. The lawsuit highlights instances where property owners paid assessments for access to Strathroy’s services, with the business district’s water and sewer services allegedly provided by Strathroy and funded by Adelaide Metcalfe.
Adelaide Metcalfe asserts that it was under the impression of a long-term utility arrangement with Strathroy, alleging that it was never informed about the necessity to construct its water and sewage systems for the business district. However, tensions escalated by 2022, with alleged refusals from Strathroy to review and approve sewer and water connection requests for developments in the district.
Despite prior indications allowing certain projects to proceed, such as a medical building and a care home, Strathroy is accused of refusing any connections to the water and sewage public utilities along the corridor, purportedly hindering economic development solely to benefit Strathroy-Caradoc.
Here is the court document for your viewing.
Court Document
December 18, 2023
TO: THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF STRATHROY-CARADOC
52 Frank Street Strathroy, Ontario N7G 2R4
CLAIM
1. The Plaintiff, the Corporation of the Township of Adelaide Metcalfe (“Adelaide Metcalfe”), claims against the Defendant, the Corporation of the Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc (“Strathroy-Caradoc”):
damages in the amount of $50,000,000.00, for abuse of public power;
in the alternative, damages in the amount of $50,000,000.00, for breach of its duty to act in good faith;
in the further alternative, damages, in the amount of $50,000,000.00 for wrongful and intentional interference with the economic relations of Adelaide Metcalfe;
In the further alternative, damages, in the amount of $50,000,000.00 for the negligent misrepresentations;
such interim or interlocutory relief as the Plaintiff may request and this Honourable Court may deem just;
special damages for misfeasance of public office / abuse of authority; as yet to be finally determined with such damages to be quantified prior to trial;
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest in accordance with the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.C43, as amended;
the costs of this action on a substantial indemnity basis as well as any applicable taxes; and,
such further and other relief as the Plaintiff may request and this Honourable Court deems just.
THE PARTIES
2. The Plaintiff, The Corporation of the Township of Adelaide Metcalfe, is a municipal corporation incorporated under the laws of the Province of Ontario. Adelaide Metcalfe is a township and a lower tier municipality situated within Middlesex County, in the Province of Ontario. Adelaide Metcalfe was formed on January 1, 2001 through the amalgamation of the former Township of Adelaide and the Township of Metcalfe. The elected governing body of Adelaide Metcalfe, namely its council (“Adelaide Metcalfe Council”), is responsible for carrying out Adelaide Metcalfe’s legislative functions.
3. The Defendant, the Corporation of the Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc, is a municipal corporation incorporated under the laws of the Province of Ontario. Strathroy Caradoc is a municipality and a lower tier municipality situated within Middlesex County, Province of Ontario. Strathroy-Caradoc was formed in 2001 as a result of an amalgamation of the Town of Strathroy and the Township of Caradoc. The elected governing body of Strathroy-Caradoc, namely its council (“Strathroy-Caradoc Council”), is responsible for carrying out Strathroy-Caradoc’s legislative functions.
ADELAIDE METCALFE’S POSITION IN A NUTSHELL
4. Adelaide Metcalfe seeks to remedy the harm arising due to the bad faith actions, improper use, and economic interference of Strathroy-Caradoc. Strathroy-Caradoc has engaged in unlawful and deliberate conduct for the purpose of delaying, obstructing, hindering, and preventing Adelaide Metcalfe from engaging in its economic development activities to pursue development along its commercial corridor area. Particulars of such unlawful conduct are set out below.
BACKGROUND
5. For more than fifteen (15) years, Adelaide Metcalfe and Strathroy-Caradoc have discussed and agreed to share services for the purposes of provided water and sewer public utilities to the area situated in Adelaide Metcalfe that is identified as the commercial corridor area.
6. In or around 1999, Strathroy-Caradoc approached Adelaide Metcalfe to discuss the sharing of services along County Road #81 (Centre Street) corridor (the “Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor”). These discussions arose as a result of Strathroy-Caradoc desiring to attract economic development through the establishment of a Canadian Tire to the area and further to ensure that sufficient servicing in the form of water and sewage public utilities were available to accommodate such economic development opportunities.
7. The sharing of services between Adelaide Metcalfe and Strathroy-Caradoc is neither unusual nor unfamiliar to the municipalities. Both municipalities have, and continue to, enter into servicing agreements relating to public utilities including but not limited to a servicing agreement for Grogast Court.
8. The sharing of the water and sewage public utilities between Adelaide Metcalfe and Strathroy-Caradoc for the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor became necessary as a result of: an identification of a need for economic development in the area; numerous property owners in the area advising of the need to provide municipal services to facilitate development opportunities; failure of septic systems in the area; lack of access to potable water and fire protection; demand for industrial / commercial development along County Road 81; and, approval of site specific developments in the area subject to a holding provision requiring the availability of full municipal services.
9. The timing of the implementation of the sharing of services between Strathroy-Caradoc and Adelaide Metcalfe was directly as a result of the immediate need of Strathroy-Caradoc to have a watermain constructed along Centre Road.
10. In or around January 2006, several property owners situated within the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor agreed to pay an assessment that was levied against each property owner in the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor associated with the provision of the Strathroy-Caradoc water and sewage public utilities
11. It was, and continues to be, the understanding of Adelaide Metcalfe that the intention of the “shared” water and sewage public utilities for the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor area along County Road #81 was a permanent public utility servicing arrangement between Strathroy-Caradoc and Adelaide Metcalfe for the benefit of Adelaide Metcalfe and all of the property owners situated in the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor area.
12. At no time was Adelaide Metcalfe ever informed or advised of the need to construct its own sewage and water systems to provide such public utility services to the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor area. More importantly, at all times, Strathroy-Caradoc led Adelaide Metcalfe to believe that Strathroy-Caradoc’s provision of services to the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor area and Adelaide Metcalfe’s payment for the construction and continued operation of those public utilities represented a permanent solution for the properties in the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor area to have access to municipal water and sewage service public utilities.
13. The commitment of Strathroy-Caradoc for the provision of the water and sewage public utilities to the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor area was confirmed by the arbitration clause set out in the agreement allowing the parties to seek the guidance of the Ontario Municipal Board (no Ontario Land Tribunal) in the event the parties were unable to agree on a provision of the servicing agreement as it related to the provision of the water and sewage public utilities to the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor area.
THE ADELAIDE METCALFE COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR
14. The Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor concentrates highway commercial uses and a limited range of light industrial uses in this central area to provide an attractive, fully serviced commercial node that is sufficiently separated from agricultural, residential, and downtown commercial uses.
15. The lands located in the Commercial Corridor form a gateway feature, extending along Centre Road from Provincial Highway 402 south to Pannell Lane at the municipal boundary of Strathroy-Caradoc. The municipal boundary of Strathroy-Caradoc abuts the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor to the north and west.
16. Municipal water and sanitary services to the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor are provided by Strathroy-Caradoc and paid for by Adelaide Metcalfe with the various property owners in the area paying for the construction of the infrastructure associated with the provision of those water and sewage public utilities.
17. The Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor represents the largest concentration of commercial and industrial development within Adelaide Metcalfe.
1980 BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT
18. In or around the early 1980s, the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor was retained by Adelaide Metcalfe following a major annexation by Strathroy-Caradoc (Town of Strathroy at that time).
19. In or around 1980 Strathroy-Caradoc acquired lands from Adelaide Metcalfe for the purposes of expanding the settlement area of Strathroy-Caradoc through a boundary adjustment. The intent and purpose of the boundary adjustment was for Strathroy-Caradoc to acquire lands to be used for industrial purposes (the “1980 Boundary Adjustment”).
20. The 1980 Boundary Adjustment was approved by the Ontario Municipal Board (the “OMB” now the Ontario Land Tribunal). At that time, the new boundary between Strathroy-Caradoc and Adelaide Metcalfe was intentionally and purposively delineated to ensure that some industrial, commercial, and residential uses remained along County Road #81 (Centre Road) in Adelaide Metcalfe. The purpose of maintaining this area in Adelaide Metcalfe was to ensure that Adelaide Metcalfe was at all times in a position to maintain an appropriate tax assessment base and encourage commercial and industrial development to the area.
21. As part of the 1980 Boundary Adjustment both Adelaide Metcalfe and Strathroy-Caradoc were directed to amend their Official Plans to avoid any competing land uses in the County Road #81 (Centre Road) area. Adelaide Metcalfe was directed to amend its Official Plan and restrict the permitted uses to highway commercial. Strathroy-Caradoc was directed to amend their Official Plan to ensure that the lands north of Second Street be designated for industrial purposes and the lands south of Second Street be designated for residential purposes. These restrictions were enacted by both the Adelaide Metcalfe and Strathroy-Caradoc.
22. On September 8, 1980, the OMB issued a written decision under OMB File No.: M 79307 setting out the obligations of each of the municipalities respectively in support of the 1980 Boundary Adjustment (the “OMB Decision”). The 1980 Boundary Adjustment came into effect on January 1, 1981.
PROVISION OF SERVICES TO THE ADELAIDE METCALFE COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR
23. In or around 1998 Strathroy-Caradoc (Town of Strathroy at that time) discussed extending public utility services to Adelaide Metcalfe (Township of Adelaide at that time) for the purposes of accommodating the expansion of an industry to the area.
24. In July 2000 Adelaide Metcalfe was seeking to expand several businesses within the Commercial Corridor area. During this period, ad hoc solutions were considered not to be an appropriate answer to the economic demands in the area and for the betterment of the community it was determined by Strathroy-Caradoc that a long term solution needed to be found to address the issue.
25. In or around July 2000, Adelaide Metcalfe Council and Strathroy-Caradoc Council met to discuss: (i) the servicing of lands in the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor area to accommodate a new Canadian Tire store that was recognized as an important project to both municipalities; and (ii) the broader subject of servicing the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor through an extension of Strathroy-Caradoc services into the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor area.
26. Also, in or around 2000, during the period of discussions between Councils for Adelaide Metcalfe and Strathroy-Caradoc with respect to the servicing of the lands in the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor area; Strathroy-Caradoc proposed the annexation of the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor area as a means of resolving the servicing issue. However, due to the extensive agricultural operations, coupled with the regional commercial and industrial land uses and economic development, Adelaide Metcalfe opposed any annexation of the area by Strathroy-Caradoc.
27. In July 2002, Strathroy-Caradoc confirmed its position that the provision of sewage and water public utilities to the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor area would be for an indefinite period. This position had been made known to Adelaide Metcalfe in writing.
28. In or around 2003 Councils of Strathroy-Caradoc and Adelaide Metcalfe met to discuss a servicing agreement between the two municipalities to facilitate the provision of both water and sewage public utilities from Strathroy-Caradoc to Adelaide Metcalfe. These discussions also included the provision of a looped system necessary for Strathroy-Caradoc’s drinking water system and to ensure the required water pressure for fire suppression for Strathroy-Caradoc.
29. In or around February 2003 Strathroy-Caradoc in considering the provision of servicing to Adelaide Metcalfe again confirmed its position that any termination of the agreement would not be agreed upon by Strathroy-Caradoc. Specifically, Strathroy-Caradoc took the position that the parties would agree to take such further actions and enter into any further agreements that may be necessary to ensure that the provision of the water and sewage public utilities to the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor remained in place.
30. In or around December 2003 both Adelaide Metcalfe and Strathroy-Caradoc passed by-laws formalizing the agreement with each other as municipal corporations respecting the provision of water and sewage public utilities to the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor area.
31. On June 7, 2004, Adelaide Metcalfe passed By-law 24-2004 being a by-law under the provisions of the Municipal Act, 2001 in force at that time to designate the Commercial Corridor area as agreed upon by Strathroy-Caradoc for the purposes of the extension sewage and water public utilities from Strathroy-Caradoc to the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor area.
32. On or about August 1, 2011 Strathroy-Caradoc confirmed its support for and acknowledged the importance of the development occurring in the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor area and its positive impact on the community and region.
33. On May 10, 2011 Strathroy-Caradoc confirmed its excitement, support and approval for the hotel development approved in the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor area (the “Hotel Development”). Strathroy-Caradoc confirmed the significant strides made in increasing the economic impact of tourism in the region.
34. In or around late 2016 Adelaide Metcalfe, Strathroy-Caradoc and the County of Middlesex considered a request for a municipal boundary adjustment whereby lands were proposed to be brought into the jurisdiction of Strathroy-Caradoc. The lands subject to the transfer were situated in the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor area, approximately 10.6 hectares in size and designated Residential-Special Policy Area No. 7 from the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor designation.
35. In or around April 2017 Adelaide Metcalfe passed in interim control by-law to “prohibit planning and development applications for shopping centres and small-scale free-standing retail and office uses with a minimum floor space less than 465 m2 (5,000 ft2) within the [Adelaide Metcalfe] Commercial Corridor are Caradoc. The study of the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor was undertaken and included Strathroy-Caradoc in the study process.
36. In or around August 2017, Strathroy-Caradoc again confirmed its support for commercial development in the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor area and specifically confirmed the allocation of water and sewer public utility services to the Hotel Development situated in the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor area specifically being developed for the purposes of a hotel, gas-bar, and take-out restaurant establishment.
37. In or around November 2019, Strathroy-Caradoc conducted a water and sewage rate study and long-range financial plan in accordance with the provisions of Ontario Regulation 453/07. The purpose of this report was to provide a 10-year forecast and the associated financial plan as it related to the water and sewage public utilities. The statement of financial operations incorporated the revenues paid by Adelaide Metcalfe for the provision of water and sewage services in the long range plans for Strathroy-Caradoc as it relates to the provision of the water and sewage public utilities to the year 2029.
38. On March 31, 2021 Strathroy-Caradoc publicly announced its continuation of the sharing of public utility services to the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor area.
39. In or around July 2021 Strathroy-Caradoc again confirmed the continued provision and sharing of public utility services to the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor in support of development activities in that area.
40. In May 2022 Adelaide Metcalfe raised a concern about Strathroy-Caradoc allocating the water and sewage public utilities’ capacity to the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor to other areas located in Strathroy-Caradoc for the purposes of a residential condominium development providing a total of 35 units along with a commercial block and two commercial buildings. These lands are situated outside of the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor area.
41. During the negotiations between Strathroy-Caradoc and Adelaide Metcalfe about the continued sharing of public and water sewage public utilities through an updated servicing agreement, Strathroy-Caradoc raised numerous concerns all of which were addressed by Adelaide Metcalfe through a revised agreement to be entered into between Adelaide Metcalfe and Strathroy-Caradoc.
42. On June 6, 2022 Strathroy-Caradoc reviewed and considered a report detailing a Phase 2 design for the Strathroy-Caradoc Wastewater Treatment Facility that again specifically incorporated the allocated payment for this work to Adelaide Metcalfe for its allocated use of the sewage public utility.
43. In October 2022 Adelaide Metcalfe prepared a Community Improvement Plan (the “CIP”) to facilitate improvements to those lands situated in strategic areas of Adelaide Metcalfe. As part of this CIP Adelaide Metcalfe identified the Commercial Corridor area along Centre Road (County Road No. 81) as the “primary commercial corridor and gateway“ to Adelaide Metcalfe acknowledging it as a major source of tax assessment and revenue for the community.
44. On August 8, 2023 Strathroy-Caradoc confirmed its willingness, publicly, to allow the development of a medical services facility to proceed on a 17-acre property located in the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor area.
45. All of these representations, statements and actions by Strathroy-Caradoc were relied upon by Adelaide Metcalfe that continued to encourage and promote economic development of the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor area, based on:
(i) the availability of water and sewage public utilities to the area by Strathroy-Caradoc for which Adelaide Metcalfe relied upon;
(ii) the landowners in the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor paid for; and,
(iii) Adelaide Metcalfe paid for and continues to pay for.
STRATHROY-CARADOC’S INTERFERENCE
46. Strathroy-Caradoc engaged in, and continues to engage in, efforts solely for the purposes of discrediting Adelaide Metcalfe in the eyes of the community. Strathroy-Caradoc has deliberately interfered and continues to interfere with economic development opportunities in Adelaide Metcalfe.
47. Strathroy-Caradoc is charging residents in Adelaide Metcalfe for failing to connect to the public utilities services provided through the sharing of public utilities between Adelaide Metcalfe and Strathroy-Caradoc while at the same time Strathroy-Caradoc is refusing to allow those Adelaide Metcalfe residents to connect to the shared public utility services.
48. Strathroy-Caradoc’s elected representatives have advised property owners in the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor with respect to the provision of water and sewer public utilities that in denying the connections and access to the public utilities that Strathroy-Caradoc – had to draw a line somewhere.
49. In or around October 12, 2022, Strathroy-Caradoc fostered doubt, concerns, and unrest about Adelaide Metcalfe decision not to raise taxes to pay for any increased costs associated with servicing the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor.
50. This statement was made by Strathroy-Caradoc despite Adelaide Metcalfe not being in arrears with respect to its share of the payment associated with the water and sewage public utility services and despite Strathroy-Caradoc not having any jurisdiction over the amount of taxes payable in the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor area.
51. In January 2022, Strathroy-Caradoc completed a Regional Commercial Systems Study (the “2022 Commercial Study”) taking into consideration the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor area as part of its analysis. This study recognized the approximately 111,000 sq. ft (10,300 m2) of occupied commercial leasable area situated within the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor area.
52. This 2022 Commercial Study also confirmed the function of the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor area as part of the local retail system of the Strathroy Urban Settlement being situated adjacent to the urban area of Strathroy to the east and south. This 2022 Commercial Study also clearly confirmed that the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor area is serviced by Strathroy-Caradoc. However, this 2022 Commercial Study surprisingly identified 81.3 hectares of vacant land in the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor area as being unable to be serviced by Strathroy-Caradoc and having no access to water or sewage servicing. This statement was made and position taken despite Strathroy-Caradoc being aware of the long-term servicing arrangement for water and sewage being entered into between Adelaide Metcalfe and Strathroy-Caradoc.
53. On February 24, 2022, Strathroy-Caradoc advised Adelaide Metcalfe that it would not consider engaging in a capacity study relating to water and sewage; would not consider a meeting of the respective Councils; and would not engage in any arbitration proceedings to resolve the provision of the water and sewage public utilities to the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor area and/or any issues arising between the two municipalities as it relates to the provision of water and sewage public utilities in the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor area.
54. In or around March 16, 2022 Strathroy-Caradoc refused to review and approve any service connection requests for sewage and water made for lands situated in the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor area.
55. On March 21, 2022, Adelaide Metcalfe’s Committee of Adjustment granted a consent to sever lands in the Commercial Corridor area for the purposes of creating three (3) commercial lots fronting along County Road #81 for the purposes of facilitating future commercial development. Strathroy-Caradoc did not raise any objections to the creation of these three commercial lots despite knowing that it would not permit any connection to the water and sewage public utilities in the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor area. Strathroy-Caradoc was circulated in advance of the application for consent and had every opportunity to object to the severance and chose not to do so.
56. On June 20, 2022 Strathroy-Caradoc refused to connect water and sewage public utilities to the property in the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor area being development for the hotel, new gas bar and take out establishment. This decision was made despite Strathroy-Caradoc approving this specific development.
57. On May 11, 2023, Adelaide Metcalfe was advised that the sale of a property situated in the Commercial Corridor area would likely be terminated due to Strathroy-Caradoc’s refusal to provide water and sewage public utilities to the property.
58. On June 14, 2023, Strathroy-Caradoc refused a water connection to several commercial businesses situated in the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor area for the purposes of a gas station, car wash, take-out restaurants, and convenience commercial uses. Strathroy-Caradoc was, or ought to have been, aware of the significant losses being incurred, and which continue to be incurred by the property owners and, therefore, the damages being claimed by those property owners against Adelaide Metcalfe as a result of Adelaide Metcalfe being unable to provide access to water and sewage public utilities.
59. On July 20, 2023 Strathroy-Caradoc was advised by Adelaide Metcalfe of the development of a medical services facility and long term care home in the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor area. Strathroy-Caradoc has refused to make available or discuss the availability of servicing to this property despite publicly stating that it was willing to allow the medical centre facility to proceed.
60. More recently, despite Strathroy-Caradoc confirming its willingness publicly to allow development to proceed in the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor area on public utilities – water and sewage – Strathroy-Caradoc has refused to facilitate, approve, or even contemplate any connections to the water and sewage public utilities for any properties located in the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor area.
61. The actions of Strathroy-Caradoc in refusing any water and sewage connections to the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor area have interfered with property owners’ ability to develop lands situated in this area and interfered with and frustrated the economic development interests of Adelaide Metcalfe.
62. Strathroy-Caradoc’s recent refusal to provide access to water and sewage public utilities to those properties situated within the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor negatively impacts: Adelaide Metcalfe’s tax base; economic development in the area; and results in a loss of job opportunities and restricts growth opportunities in the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor area.
63. Strathroy-Caradoc’s actions have eroded the public trust of Adelaide Metcalfe’s taxpayers and landowners to engage economic development activities in the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor Area.
64. Strathroy-Caradoc through its actions has obstructed and interfered with the economic development opportunities in the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor.
65. It is clear that the actions of Strathroy-Caradoc are improperly targeted at Adelaide Metcalfe to stop any economic development in the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor for the sole purpose of benefitting Strathroy-Caradoc.
66. At all times Strathroy-Caradoc acted arbitrarily, inconsistent, and in an unreasonably manner in its negotiations of the extension and renewal of the shared services agreement as such agreement relates to the provision of water and sewage public utilities to the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor area which is evidenced through the following actions of Strathroy-Caradoc, among others:
Providing a draft servicing agreement that was known or ought to have been known to result in excessive costs and financial hardship being placed on the property owners located within the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor area;
Promoting an agreement term of two (2) years despite knowing the agreement specifically related to the provision of public utilities and the associated infrastructure known to have a lifecycle of approximately seventy-five (75) years;
Refusing to provide public utility water and sewage connections to the Hotel Development despite previously confirming that such public utility connections would be provided;
Failing to negotiate the public utility servicing agreement despite Adelaide Metcalfe addressing all of the concerns raised by Strathroy-Caradoc;
Knowing that Adelaide Metcalfe with the investment of the property owners located in the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor area paying for the physical infrastructure required to support the provision of the public utility water and sewage services;
Neglecting to respond to letters, telephone calls, e-mails from Adelaide Metcalfe as such communications related to the provision of services to the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor area;
Placing unreasonable and extreme penalties on Adelaide Metcalfe;
Changing the requirements of the provision of the agreement in an arbitrary manner;
Failing or neglecting to comply with its statutory obligations as set out in the Municipal Act, 2001;
Prohibiting Adelaide Metcalfe from allowing connections to the water and sewer public utilities;
Making false or incorrect statements relating to Adelaide Metcalfe’s ability to provide fire services to its tax payers;
Failing to treat Adelaide Metcalfe similar to any other customer of the system;
Refusing to provide public utility connections to the Hotel Development despite such connections being previously approved and confirmed by Strathroy-Caradoc;
ABUSE OF PUBLIC OFFICE AND INTERFERENCE WITH ECONOMIC RELATIONS
67. Strathroy-Caradoc has engaged in a campaign of deliberate and unlawful conduct in the purported exercise of their public functions. Such conduct was undertaken with either the intent to injure Adelaide Metcalfe or with an awareness of its unlawfulness and awareness that harm was likely to occur to Adelaide Metcalfe. This conduct did in fact cause and continues to cause Adelaide Metcalfe to suffer damages and constitutes a misfeasance of public office and bad faith conduct on the part of Strathroy-Caradoc.
68. Strathroy-Caradoc has used political influence for the purposes of advancing its own agenda without due regard for: appropriate planning principles; Adelaide Metcalfe’s legitimate economic development opportunities; and its prior statements confirming that the servicing arrangement between the two municipalities was for an “indefinite” period.
69. The actions of Strathroy-Caradoc in refusing to continue with the provision of water and sewage public utilities to the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor as previously paid for by Adelaide Metcalfe were done arbitrarily, in bad faith and for improper purpose contrary to duties of impartiality owed to Adelaide Metcalfe.
70. Adelaide Metcalfe pleads that at all times Strathroy-Caradoc had a duty:
to generally act in good faith towards Adelaide Metcalfe;
owed a duty of care to Adelaide-Metcalfe;
accept and process the applications for connections to the water and sewage public utilities on the basis that the public utilities had been, and continue to be, paid for by Adelaide Metcalfe;
to act impartially towards Adelaide Metcalfe without regard to political interference and competing interests; and,
to carry out its review of the requests to connect to the water and sewage public utilities from the property owners situated within the Adelaide Commercial Corridor area with integrity and regard only to legitimate concerns and absent malice.
71. As a result of the improper actions and activities of Strathroy-Caradoc, Adelaide Metcalfe has been prevented from carrying out its economic development activities and has suffered damages as a consequence thereof, full particulars of which will be provided prior to trial.
72. It is reasonably foreseeable that any improper actions of Strathroy-Caradoc as those actions relate to the provision of water and sewage public utilities to the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor area would result in harm and injury to Adelaide Metcalfe.
73. Strathroy-Caradoc’s decision to cease and restrict any water and sewage public utilities connections in Adelaide Metcalfe was, in fact, entirely unrelated to any agreement as between the two municipalities for the provision of water and sewage public utilities. Strathroy-Caradoc terminated the access to the water and sewage public utility connections because Strathroy-Caradoc simply chose not to do so to the benefit of economic development in its own municipal boundaries despite any prior agreements, obligations and/or understanding with Adelaide Metcalfe.
74. Strathroy-Caradoc’s misleading and improper statements in the public were intended to harm Adelaide Metcalfe’s economic interests and detrimentally impacted Adelaide Metcalfe’s relationship with the numerous property owners situated with the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor area.
75. Strathroy-Caradoc’s purported reliance on the lapsing of any written servicing agreement with Adelaide Metcalfe was a contrivance, made in bad faith, and for the improper purpose of trying to justify or excuse its unlawful conduct, including its tortious interference with Adelaide Metcalfe’s economic development interests and relations with property owners in the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor area, and tax payers situated within Adelaide Metcalfe as a whole.
76. At all material times, Strathroy-Caradoc was aware of its commitment to provide water and sewage public utilities to Adelaide Metcalfe and knew or ought to have known failure to do so would result in substantial harm and damages to Adelaide Metcalfe.
DAMAGES AND OTHER RELIEF
77. As a result of the foregoing, Adelaide Metcalfe has suffered substantial damages, including loss of economic development opportunities in the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor area.
78. Further, as a result of the untenable position taken by Strathroy-Caradoc in refusing water and sewage public utilities to the Adelaide Metcalfe Commercial Corridor, property owners in the area are suffering, or have suffered, considerable damages for which Adelaide Metcalfe is being held liable for due to the lack of connections to water and sewage public utilities to the property owners and the resulting loss of increased tax revenue to the Adelaide Metcalfe taxpayers.
79. Adelaide Metcalfe proposes that this action be tried in London, Ontario.
December 18, 2023