Case Law Update
Expropriation law is a specialized area focused on advocating for fair compensation to landowners in accordance with the Expropriations Act (the “Act”) and related statutes such as the Transit-Oriented Communities Act and the Building Transit Faster Act.
Land conveyance agreements or contractual expropriations which are often referred to as ‘Section 30 Agreements’, are commonly negotiated prior to or in parallel with the expropriation proceedings. This negotiation framework was highlighted in a recent decision entitled New Sunlight v Ontario (Ministry of Infrastructure), 2025 ONSC 638.
Case Summary
- Under the Expropriations Act, impacted landowners in Ontario are allowed to request an Inquiry or ‘hearing of necessity’ to challenge an authority’s proposed expropriation of land.
- In New Sunlight, the Divisional Court considered an application by New Sunlight to quash two pieces of subordinate legislation issued by the Lieutenant Governor in Council (the “Cabinet”) designating the subject lands as “transit-oriented community land” (“TOC”).
- A TOC designation allows for lands to be expropriated without the landowners having the right to an Inquiry/hearing of necessity.
- Section 2 of the Transit-Oriented Communities Act, SO 2020 provides a broad grant of authority for Cabinet to designate land if it forms the opinion that the designation “is or may be required to support a transit-oriented community project”.
- The parties were negotiating an agreement whereby New Sunlight would convey the subject lands to the province for the purpose of a priority transit project.
- In exchange for the conveyance of the lands, the province would upzone the remaining lands to allow New Sunlight to develop the remainder at a greater density.
- Amidst negotiations, and without notice, the provincial Cabinet issued the two Orders in Council noted above, designating the land as TOC.
- New Sunlight submitted that both Orders were unreasonable, made arbitrarily on the basis of incomplete, inaccurate, and misleading information, and made in bad faith.
- The province submitted that both OICs were consistent with the purposes of their enabling statutes (section 2 of the Transit-Oriented Communities Act, SO 2020), intra vires and reasonable.
- The Court found that the OICs were made reasonably within the scope of the authority delegated by the enabling statues and consistent with the legislation’s overriding purpose.
- The Court determined that the purpose of the TOC designation is for streamlining potential expropriations and to ensure project deadlines are met – purposes outlined in the Transit-Oriented Communities Act.
- Ultimately the Court found that there was no bad faith on the part of the authority noting that “there is nothing inconsistent with the legislative purpose in wanting to ensure that steps could be taken to acquire the lands at issue in time to meet project deadlines”.