Expropriation Law 2025: A Year In Review

This article summarizes significant expropriation decisions released in 2025 from across Canada, as selected by Gowling WLG's National Expropriation Law Group. The team highlights several important issues and key takeaways for those parties involved in the expropriation process. The decisions are not listed in rank order.

Oostvogels (Re), 2025 NSRAB 77

This ruling by the Nova Scotia Regulatory and Appeals Board confirms that general limitations legislation in Nova Scotia does not apply to expropriation compensation claims before the Board, a novel issue that, as far as the Board was aware, had never been considered by the Board or the Courts in Nova Scotia.

The dispute arose from the 2009 expropriation of pasture lands in West River for the Highway 104 twinning project. Before addressing the issue of fair compensation, the Board was asked to rule on certain limitation-based defences raised by the Province.

The Province argued that the landowner's claim for injurious affection was barred by two statutes: the Limitation of Actions 1989 and the Limitation of Actions 2014. The Board rejected this argument, concluding that these statutes only apply to court proceedings. The Board is not a court when carrying out its duties under Nova Scotia's Expropriation Act. The Expropriation Act consistently distinguishes between proceedings before "the Board" and those before "the Court," and the Board's enabling legislation differentiates the Board's evidentiary powers from the rules governing what is admissible in a court of law.

These statutory features confirmed that general limitation statutes were not intended to govern expropriation proceedings before the Board. Instead, s. 31(1) of the Expropriation Act requires that claimants make any injurious affection claims, in writing, within one year of the damage occurring or within one year of the claimant having knowledge of the claim. Otherwise, there are no limitation periods establishing when such a claim can be brought under the Expropriation Act.

This case emphasises legal counsel's role in ensuring that claims are advanced within applicable limitation periods.

Immobilier Ski Bromont inc. v. City of Bromont, 2025 QCCA 1085

In this decision, the Quebec Court of Appeal addressed a constructive expropriation claim arising from land-use regulations adopted by the City of Bromont. The central issue was whether the current owners of the affected lands, who acquired the lands after the restrictive regulations were put in force, had legal standing to claim damages for constructive expropriation.

The City of Bromont adopted planning regulations that excluded certain lands from priority development zones, which effectively halted development projects planned by the original owners. As a result, those owners alleged that the restrictive zoning effectively expropriated their land. In May 2021, the original owners sold the lands to affiliated companies.

The City of Bromont raised two arguments to resist the claim by the new owners. First, a purchaser who acquires property with full knowledge of existing public-law restrictions is presumed to have paid a price reflecting those restrictions and therefore cannot claim to have suffered a compensable loss. Second, the notarized deeds of sale contained no reference to an assignment of receivables or legal claims. Under Article 1641 of the Civil Code of Québec, an assignment of rights must be clearly established to be enforceable against the debtor.

The Quebec Superior Court partially dismissed the claim unless the new plaintiffs could provide documentary evidence of an assignment of claims from the original owners, a condition the Quebec Court of Appeal upheld. In doing so, the Court of Appeal emphasized that no exceptional circumstances existed that would justify allowing a subsequent purchaser to claim compensation absent an express assignment, such as a regulatory change occurring immediately after a purchase.

The Court also rejected the appellants' reliance on an alleged oral assignment because the notarized deeds stated they were the entire agreement between the parties and because there were no corporate resolutions authorizing an assignment.

Ultimately, without clear documentary evidence of a valid assignment of rights, the new owners lacked standing to pursue damages against the City. The alleged loss resulting from the constructive expropriation, if any, was suffered by the original owners, not by the purchasers who acquired the property subject to the existing regulatory restrictions.

When transacting in land impacted by expropriation or constructive expropriation, care is required to preserve potential compensation claims through the sale documentation.

Pelletier c. Ville d'Alma, 2025 QCCA 1343

The Quebec Court of Appeal's decision in Pelletier v. City of Alma addressed the sufficiency of a notice of expropriation for the development of a student housing project.

Section 9 of the Expropriations Act requires that municipalities give the expropriated landowner "a precise statement of the purposes of the expropriation." In this case, the notice of expropriation stated that the expropriation was "for a public utility project, namely, a residential building project with public partners" and the regularization of a fire safety issue affecting a neighbouring municipal building.

The landowner challenged the expropriation on the ground that the notice of expropriation failed to describe the purpose of the taking with sufficient precision, contrary to Quebec's Expropriation Act. The Court of Appeal agreed, determining that the notice failed to clearly define the public partners or the municipal objectives for the expropriation.

Although the Court maintained that judges should generally defer to municipal discretion regarding the necessity of a project, strict adherence to procedural transparency remains mandatory. Consequently, the Court annulled the expropriation, emphasizing that a vague description of purpose deprives owners of their right to effectively assess and challenge the validity of the expropriation.

The decision underscores that while municipalities possess broad expropriation powers, strict compliance with procedural requirements, particularly the obligation to clearly articulate the purpose of the taking, is essential to the validity of an expropriation.

Singh v. Waterloo (City), 2025 CanLII 37597 (ON LT)

This decision reaffirms the Ontario Land Tribunal's distinct jurisdiction to address expropriation compensation claims in Ontario.

In 2012, the City of Waterloo approved an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment, which the claimants appealed. In 2014, the appeal was settled, with the claimants agreeing to give the City a pedestrian corridor and easement. The claimants never transferred these interests to the City. In 2019, the City commenced a proceeding in the Ontario Superior Court to enforce the settlement, and in 2020, the City expropriated the land that it was to have received. The former landowners commenced an expropriation compensation claim before the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The City questioned whether the Ontario Land Tribunal could address the claimant's expropriation compensation claim while the Court proceeding was underway. The Tribunal determined that the Court proceeding did not oust the Tribunal's exclusive jurisdiction over expropriation proceedings.

The Tribunal also determined that because the City acquired the full fee simple interest to the expropriated land, there was no title issue to be resolved through the Court proceeding. The Tribunal could determine expropriation compensation while the Court separately addressed the City's claims for damages arising from the alleged breaches of the settlement agreement.

Cynthia Lynch v. Regional Municipality of Halton, 2025 CanLII 59840 (ON LT)

In this cost adjudication under s. 32 of Ontario's Expropriations Act, the Ontario Land Tribunal considered whether the landowner was entitled to compensation for the cost of tax advice relating to the settlement of her expropriation claim.

While the Tribunal found that some of the tax work was not related to obtaining compensation for the expropriation, it was reasonable for the claimant to obtain tax advice relating to: (1) how her status as a non-resident might impact her approach to the settlement and its quantum, and (2) a clearance certificate that the Region required before releasing the settlement funds. The Tribunal awarded compensation for the cost of this tax advice.

This decision demonstrates the broad compensation that expropriation legislation affords to expropriated landowners. When seeking compensation for their costs, claimants should consider the full extent of the costs they have incurred and assess whether those costs are compensable.

Gabriel Khater Operating as House of Pizza v. Ottawa (City), 2025 CanLII 110387

The claimant and the City of Ottawa settled a compensation claim arising from the expropriation of a property where the claimant operated a restaurant as a commercial tenant. The settlement provided for compensation of $50,000 plus the claimant's costs.

The claimant sought compensation for $400,000 in legal and consulting fees. The City argued that the claimant acted unreasonably by waiting to accept the settlement offer until six days before the hearing of the compensation claim, and that either the municipality should be awarded its costs or the claimant's costs should be substantially reduced.

The Ontario Land Tribunal rejected the City's cost claim because the settlement agreement only contemplated costs being payable to the claimant. The agreement did not reserve the City's right to seek its own costs, and the City could not rely on the Expropriations Act's cost provisions or the Tribunal's procedural rules to seek its costs outside the confines of the settlement. This outcome highlights the importance of carefully crafted settlement documentation that captures the parties' intentions.

The Tribunal also rejected the City's criticisms of the claimant's conduct, observing that most of the criticisms related to the strength of the claimant's case. The Tribunal was cautious of effectively trying the merits of the claim, through the costs determination, when the hearing on the merits had been settled. Accordingly, the Tribunal restricted itself to considering "neutral" or "objective" facts, such as dates of key steps in the proceeding. Ultimately, the Tribunal determined that the bulk of the claimant's costs were reasonable.

Birch Hills (Town) v Getz, 2025 SKKB 193

In Birch Hills (Town) v. Getz, the Saskatchewan Court of King's Bench considered whether a purchase price of $187,500 negotiated between the municipality and the landowner could be relied on in determining the compensation owing from the Town. In this case, the Town expropriated the land after the sale negotiations failed. The Town argued that compensation should be based on the fair market value for comparable agricultural land ($97,000) instead of the negotiated purchase price.

The Court's decision highlights a key aspect of the compensation regime in Saskatchewan, which considers the "value to the owner" rather than the statutory criteria adopted by numerous other provinces. As the Court observed, while market value depends, in part, on the highest and best use of the land, the "value to the owner" principle allows the owner to adduce evidence to establish that the land had an enhanced value to the owner.

Given the "value to the owner" principle, the Court could not ignore the negotiated purchase price; the land had unique utility for the municipality's infrastructure projects, and the negotiated price reflected what a prudent owner would require to surrender the land. The prolonged, arms-length negotiations, conducted without duress, demonstrated what a willing buyer and seller considered fair compensation for that specific use. The Court gave greater weight to the negotiated price than to the municipality's appraisal evidence and awarded compensation of $187,500.

Qualico Developments West Inc v. Edmonton (City), 2025 ABKB 624

Qualico Developments West Inc v Edmonton (City) is another case emphasising the importance of proper process and selecting the appropriate forum when addressing claims relating to an expropriation.

This case considers how a municipality must acquire land designated for public use when a purchase price cannot be negotiated. Section 644 of Alberta's Municipal Government Act imposes a limit on the zoning restrictions a municipality may impose on private land before triggering purchase or redesignation obligations. If a municipality zones private land for use as a school, park, or recreation facility, the municipality must, within six months, change the designation, acquire the land, or commence proceedings to acquire the land.

In this case, the Alberta Court of King's Bench considered, for the first time, the meaning of "commence proceedings" under s. 644. The landowner argued that expropriation was the only available mechanism for the unilateral acquisition of private property, with compensation to be determined by the Land and Property Rights Tribunal. The municipality argued that the Court's inherent jurisdiction allowed it to determine the compensation payable upon application by the municipality.

The Court observed that the municipality's approach addressed compensation, but not land acquisition, and that the parties did not reference any authority establishing that the Court could direct one party to sell land to another party (absent an enforceable sale agreement). As a result, the Court agreed with the landowner, decided that s. 644 refers to the commencement of expropriation proceedings under Alberta's Expropriation Act, and ordered the municipality to commence expropriation proceedings by applying to the Tribunal to determine the compensation payable.

Selenium Creative Ltd v Edmonton,2025 ABCA 120

The City of Edmonton expropriated the leasehold interest of Selenium Creative Ltd. to facilitate the Yellowhead Freeway Conversion Project. While the City issued the statutorily mandated 90-day notice to vacate, Selenium applied for an extension under section 64(3) of Alberta's Expropriation Act, requesting an additional 2-3 years because its operations were highly specialized and relocation involved long lead times for contractors and equipment.

The Alberta Court of King's Bench denied Selenium's request. The Court focused narrowly on the time required to physically vacate the premises and excluded the time needed to relocate the business. The court emphasized that the Act's remedial aspects were primarily monetary, designed to compensate owners rather than provide possessory relief.

The Court of Appeal overturned this narrow interpretation, recognizing that section 64(3) is a remedial provision intended to mitigate the impact of expropriation on affected owners, and that the lower Court's rigid focus would force owners to assume significant financial risk by attempting to relocate before the expropriation process was finalized, undermining the legislation's remedial purpose.

The Court of Appeal also addressed the issue of legal costs and found that the lower Court erred by applying standard municipal litigation cost rules. In expropriation proceedings, the law seeks to ensure that owners are not financially disadvantaged for exercising their statutory rights. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal held that solicitor-client costs are generally appropriate to cover the legal expenses of an owner in these contexts.

For further information on this case, see our detailed analysis here.

546761 B.C. Ltd. v. East Kootenay (Regional District), 2025 BCSC 903

In this case, the Supreme Court of British Columbia considered a claim for injurious affection arising from the expropriation of a statutory right of way on a 157-acre recreational property known as the McKay Ranch. The Court awarded $340,000 in damages, calculated as a percentage of the value of the remaining land.

The Regional District of East Kootenay expropriated the statutory right of way to construct a new dam on a development property at Baptiste Lake, which included extensive riprap, a concrete manhole structure, and a log boom. The developer brought a claim for injurious affection under British Columbia's Expropriation Act arguing that the highly visible, industrial-looking dam marred the aesthetic and functional value of the property. The municipality argued that the dam reduced the risk of flooding, and that s. 44 of the Expropriation Act required the deduction of this betterment from any compensation otherwise owing to the landowner.

The Court accepted the subjective opinion evidence of the developer's appraiser and found that the dam significantly reduced the property's value, which depended on the property's natural setting and aesthetics. The Court also rejected the municipality's betterment argument for several reasons.

First, there was no evidence of a real flooding risk, as the original dam had been stable for 95 years and expert testimony confirmed that failure was extremely remote. Second, the District failed to demonstrate that the property's market value would have been affected by flood risk or enhanced by the new dam. Third, the alleged benefit of the works was never quantified in dollar terms. As a result, the municipality did not establish that the dam's construction benefited the property.

The Court's reasoning is in line with the betterment analysis under s. 23 of the Ontario Expropriations Act. Ontario case law has stated that in determining the set-off against damages, the betterment to the remaining land of a property owner that is assessed, is limited to those which are not general to the property owners in the area, but rather unique to the claimant's property.¹

Milne v. Canada, 2025 FC 893 (F.C.)

The plaintiff owned a property adjacent to a rail corridor. A strip was expropriated from the plaintiffs' property to expand the rail corridor, diminishing the distance between the railway lines and the plaintiff's house from 25 metres to 15 metres. The property also experienced a notable increase in railway noise after the expansion, rising from 71.4 decibels to 76.5 decibels. The plaintiff sought compensation for the cost of relocating his house, or building a new one, 100 metres away from the tracks, arguing that the severe noise impacts from the railway lines forced him to give up occupation.

The Federal Court found that the expropriation had constructively ousted the plaintiff from his house and that the plaintiff could claim disturbance damages because the resulting impacts were the natural and reasonable consequences of the expropriation. Despite this, the Court declined to award the compensation requested because it would result in a betterment.

Compensation is calculated based on the plaintiff's position at the time of the expropriation. Before the expropriation, the plaintiff's house was only 25 metres from the tracks. Accordingly, the plaintiff was not entitled to the cost of relocating his house four times that distance or of addressing any pre-existing noise issues or longstanding deficiencies outside the scope of redress.

This outcome is under appeal. While this case is an example of adverse findings if relief is not properly pleaded, it may fairly be questioned whether the Court gave due consideration to the remedial purpose of the applicable expropriation legislation. Given the findings of significant impacts on the plaintiff, it is reasonable to conclude that som

Footnote

1. Gadzala v. Toronto (City) 2004 CarswellOnt 6718, 84 L.C.R. 176, affirmed on this point Toronto and Region Conservation Authority v. Gadzala, 2006 CanLII 12974 (ON SCDC): portion of claimants' lands expropriated for purpose of creating a regional park, the expropriating authority's argument was that there should be set-off to the injurious affection claim and it was rejected on two grounds: (1) at pages 233-234, 84 L.C.R., the Board found that the services made available to the claimants' lands and adjacent lands were funded, or would be funded, by requiring contributions from those lands once they developed; (2) at page 233, 84 L.C.R., the Board determined that even if benefits were enjoyed by the claimants as a result of the works connected to the expropriation, the claim was barred as the adjacent developers enjoy the same benefit as the claimants. Parks v. Ontario (Ministry of Transportation) 1995 CarswellOnt 5191, 56 L.C.R. 166, at para 31, the Board acknowledged that if lands suffer injurious affection, but have a unique or discernable advantage, then the advantage should be set off against the injurious affection according to s. 23 of the Ontario Expropriations Act.

Read the original article on GowlingWLG.com

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.