Dalron seeks $12.2M from Greater Sudbury in Maley Drive extension dispute

Years after the roadway opened, Greater Sudbury is still embroiled in a legal dispute with Dalron Construction related to lands the city used to build the Maley Drive extension. (File)

Years after the roadway opened, Greater Sudbury is still embroiled in a legal dispute with Dalron Construction related to lands the city used to build the Maley Drive extension.

At issue is 22.41 acres of irregularly shaped land the city used for Maley, part of 117 acres that Dalron describes as “prime residential lands” it had an eye on developing.

The claim said the city used the company’s land for the Maley project without its permission and without expropriating it – trespassing on its property and using blast rock that belonged to Dalron to build the road.

In a claim dated Aug. 19, 2022, the company is seeking $260,000 for the market value of the land, $410,000 in injurious affection, $5 million for disturbance damages and $6.6 million in business losses.

A date to hear the case has been set for April 2027. The claims are being made for violations of Ontario’s Expropriations Act.

Dalron is also seeking interest as well as legal costs. It should be noted that none of the company’s claims have yet to be adjudicated by the Ontario Land Tribunal.

Messages to Dalron and Greater Sudbury seeking comment on the suit were not returned by deadline.

The statement of claim said the dispute centres on the northern part of the property, formally described as Lots 2 and 3, Concession 6, in McKim Township.

The company had been planning to blast rock in the area and use the fill for an extension of Montrose Avenue and for a road network for a planned subdivision.

“Instead, the rock material was removed and used by the city for the extension of Maley Drive and other municipal infrastructure activities,” the claim said.

Originally, the city had planned to use its own property in the area – known as the ‘dedicated lands’ -- for the extension, but when construction moved forward from 2016-2019, “the city did not follow the original alignment,” according to the claim.

“The city constructed the project on the subject property to the north of the dedicated lands without first expropriating, acquiring or otherwise obtaining the permission of Dalron to build on its land,” the claim said.

Despite the company’s “multiple requests” that the construction stop, the city kept moving ahead with Maley, according to Dalron.

In addition to “trespassing” on Dalron land for construction, it also used the rocks extracted from blasting to build the roadway without getting permission from Dalron, nor paying for the rock.

While discussions had been going on since 2008 about acquiring the land, the claim said no agreement had been reached prior to construction.

“Likewise, the city never initiated expropriation proceedings to acquire the lands required from Dalron,” the claim said.

The city even hosted former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and other government officials to celebrate the project “on land the city did not own.”

The extension formally opened Nov. 25, 2019. That same month, Dalron transferred surface rights to the city for $260,000 “without prejudice.”

Under that agreement, the company retained the right to claim “additional compensation, interest and costs.”

The land used for the extension was “an integral part” of Dalron’s residential plans for the area, the suit said, which had assumed that Maley would be built on the dedicated lands the city already owned.

The suit said that the way Maley has been built has substantially increased the cost of Dalron’s plans, including the need to re-engineer the subdivision, build a roundabout instead of signal lights, add elements to reduce noise and increased rock fill to match the “elevated grade of Maley Drive.”

“The claimant will be forced to incur damages in the form of additional development costs of no less than $5 million,” the statement of claim said.

And the city’s use of 445,000 cubic metres of rock from Dalron’s property largely led to the additional claim of $6.6 million.

The Ontario Land Tribunal will hear the case in a five-week process beginning April 6, 2027.

More details can be found here.