Expropriations Law

Thomson, Rogers minimizes the stress of expropriations by bringing its wealth of experience to the case to ensure that its clients obtain a fair and just result.

Expropriations Lawyers

Thomson, Rogers provides a full range of services related to expropriations and acts for both public authorities and land owners. Our lawyers have acted on some of the most significant expropriation cases in the country, including the Ataratiri expropriation and the Yonge Dundas Regeneration Project.

When retained by public authorities, our lawyers work with the staff and consultants to acquire land in a sensible and economic manner, identifying opportunities to mitigate and reduce the public authority’s liabilities.

When retained by land owners, our lawyers provide strategic advice respecting the proposed expropriation. Should the lands be expropriated, we pursue claims for the fair market value of the land taken, any injurious affection, damages arising from the relocation of a business, loss of good will, and disturbance damages.

Our lawyers understand that expropriation can be stressful and difficult for a business or home owner. We’re here to help.

Contact Roger Beaman, Stephen D'Agostino, Jeffrey Wilker, Alan Farrer, Alstair Burton, and David Germain at 416-868-3100. An appointment will be arranged right away.

 


 


Cases of Note
Thomson, Rogers has represented either Claimants or Expropriating Authorities in a number of precedent setting expropriation cases both in the City of Toronto and across the Province of Ontario. The following Cases of Note represent a sampling of those.

 

  • Owen Sound (City) v. Claimant (2007) 90 L.C.R. 220

    Thomson, Rogers acted for the Claimant on this matter before the Ontario Divisional Court. The Court ruled that viewing the site being expropriated may include environmental testing under section 10(3) of the Ontario Expropriations Act after service of the notice of expropriation.
     

  • Clamaint v. Ontario (Minister of Transportation) (2006) 88 L.C.R. 317

    Thomson, Rogers acted on behalf of the Claimant on this Ontario Superior Court of Justice matter. Another firm had handled the hearing of inquiry, and an application was brought for judicial review dealing with the question of whether the inquiry officer dealing with the proposed expropriation had breached the duty of procedural fairness.
     

  • Claimant v. Ontario (Management Board of Cabinet), Highway 407 Decisions, Mississauga (2005) 87 L.C.R. 56

    Thomson, Rogers acted for the Claimant which owned two separate parcels of land straddling the routing of the 407 Highway southward from the 401 Highway. Owing to the longevity of the Ontario Parkway Belt, the highest and best use of the lands was a fundamental issue in these expropriation cases, as was injurious affection, as one of the two takings had split certain lands in half. 

     

    - Ontario (Management Board of Cabinet) #1.pdf

    - Ontario (Management Board of Cabinet) #2.pdf
     

  • Claimants v. City of Toronto, Ataratari (2003) 77 L.C.R. 24

    Thomson, Rogers acted on behalf of the Claimants in this case, a reported Decision arising out of an expropriation as part of the City of Toronto "Ataratiri" development proposal. Thomson, Rogers also acted for approximately nine other Claimants in other cases dealing with Toronto's Ataratiri development proposal. In reviewing issues in this case, the Ontario Municipal Board in dealing with argument on the impact of flood plain boundaries described Roger Beaman of Thomson, Rogers (and opposing counsel) as follows: "The issue of highest and best use kept cropping up periodically including during argument by two of the most qualified and experienced legal counsel." [at page 64].
     

  • Region of Niagara Fourth Avenue Roadworks, City of St. Catharines (2001) 74 L.C.R. 1

    Thomson, Rogers acted on behalf of the Region of Niagara on this series of Court decisions. The Ontario Court of Appeal agreed that the Region had the authority to establish a median across Fourth Avenue in St. Catharines, with a resultant effect on the ingress and egress to the plaza. The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that the only remedy was an expropriation claim for injurious affection under the Expropriations Act with the result that the Region of Niagara could proceed with the necessary roadworks.
     

  • City of Toronto Yonge Street Regeneration (1999) 65 L.C.R. 181

    Thomson, Rogers acted on behalf of a landowner with two holdings at the intersection of Yonge and Dundas Streets in the City of Toronto, including the critical north east corner. The City of Toronto sought to expropriate these lands, together with those of other property owners, for the Yonge Dundas Square and the Metropolis development. The matter went to the Ontario Joint Board including as one of the scheduled matters, the Ontario Joint Board sitting as an Inquiry Officer under the Expropriations Act. Thomson, Rogers subsequently acted on behalf of the landowner in settling the land valuation and business loss expropriation claims with the City of Toronto.
     

  • Ontario Joint Board v. Ontario Hydro (1994) 50 L.C.R. 161

    Thomson, Rogers acted on behalf of the Town of Halton Hills at the Ontario Divisional Court in this stated case from the Joint Board. The Joint Board was dealing an undertaking by Ontario Hydro which consolidated matters arising under the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act and those provisions dealing with an inquiry arising from a proposed expropriation under the Ontario Expropriations Act.
     

  • Claimant v. Halton Region Conservation Authority (1990) 42 L.C.R. 310

    This one of the leading cases regarding the admissibility of market evidence after the expropriation date. The Ontario Municipal Board ruled that after the event sales are not admissible except to show a price trend; events or policy development started prior to expropriation may be followed to their result after expropriation; and the weight to be given to the after the event evidence is for the Ontario Municipal Board to assess.

  • Claimant v. City of Toronto (1991) 45 L.C.R. 317

    Thomson, Rogers acted on behalf of the Claimant in this case. The City of Toronto sought to expropriate the Claimant. On behalf of the Claimant, Thomson, Rogers negotiated a consent acquisition agreement under section 30 of the Ontario Expropriations Act. The agreement permitted compensation to be determined in accordance with the Ontario Expropriations Act. As a result of the City of Toronto
    providing a NIL offer of compensation, Thomson, Rogers successfully moved before the Ontario Municipal Board to obtain an early hearing date. The matter settled in the first days of the hearing, resulting in the City of Toronto paying a multimillion dollar settlement, together with the City of Toronto making payment under section 32 of the Ontario Expropriations Act in reimbursement of legal costs and appraisal, planning and environmental costs incurred by professional consultants. Subsequently, the City of Toronto reportedly incurred multimillion dollars in costs for remediation and clean up of the site.