The Planning Act is the primary piece of legislation that provides municipalities across Ontario, with a variety of tools to govern land use planning and property development. Acting under the authority of the Planning Act, each individual municipality enacts its own zoning by-law.

Due process in the context of land use planning and zoning is generally governed by the Planning Act. The Planning Act empowers municipalities to enact a range of land use planning “instruments” – specific types of by-laws and policies that govern the way in which land is used and property is developed. The Planning Act mandates a specific process for enacting each of these types of instruments, which typically includes requirements for public notice and comment, and consideration of public input by the municipality’s Council. Most land use planning and zoning decisions made by a municipality can be appealed by specified persons and parties (which typically include the affected landowner) to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT). On appeal, the Tribunal has the power to approve, modify or overturn the decision of the municipality.

The Planning Act is the primary piece of legislation governing planning and zoning across Ontario. The process is also governed by a host of other legislation and regulation governing matters including environmental protection, protection of heritage, agricultural regulation, expropriation and numerous other areas.

Municipalities are generally responsible for regulating the development and use of land within their territorial boundaries. In doing so, they act under the authority of provincial legislation and must adhere to policy enacted by the provincial government. Neighbourhood or community organisations often participate in the land use planning process and make submissions to municipal councils, although the ability of these groups to appeal decisions has been severely curtailed in recent years.

The land use planning and zoning regime in Ontario is relatively unique, in that the OLT is a very powerful appeal body. In many other jurisdictions, land use planning decisions made by municipal councils can only be overturned in specific circumstances through judicial review or similar mechanisms. In Ontario, however, most land use planning decisions made by municipalities can be appealed to the OLT, which has the power to approve, modify or overturn the decision of municipal councils.

Nearly all aspects of land use and development are regulated in Ontario, from pre-development to building completion, including:

• the manner in which land may be used;
• the form of development that may take place on a given property;
• “performance standards”, such as building height, lot area, setbacks, lot size and the like;
• servicing and infrastructure requirements;
• environmental standards that must be met;
• heritage issues that must be considered;
• construction standards; and
• numerous other aspects of development.

Main Sources of Expropriation Law

In Ontario, the mains sources of expropriation law are as follows.

• The Expropriations Act, as set out in the Revised Statutes of Ontario 1990, Chapter E.26 (the “Expropriations Act”).
• The Revised Regulations of Ontario 1990, Regulation 364: Rules To Be Applied For The Purposes Of Subsection 32 (1) Of The Act under Expropriations Act, as set out in the Revised Statutes of Ontario 1990, Chapter E.26.
• The Revised Regulations of Ontario 1990, Regulation 363: Forms under Expropriations Act, as set out in the Revised Statutes of Ontario  1990, Chapter E.26.
• The Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, Statutes of Ontario 2021, Chapter 4, Schedule 6.
• Ontario Regulation 350/21: Transition under Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, Statutes of Ontario 2021, Chapter 4, Schedule 6.
• Ontario Regulation 351/21: Consolidated Hearings under Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, Statutes of Ontario 2021, Chapter 4, Schedule 6.
• The Ontario Land Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure: made under subsection 13(1) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, Statutes of Ontario 2021, Chapter 4, Schedule 6.

Legislative and policy changes in Ontario over the last 12 months continue to attempt to accelerate the development approval and construction process, including by:

• placing a strong emphasis on housing development and intensification;
• unlocking land for development;
• accelerating development oriented around mass transit; and
• limiting some municipal zoning and regulatory powers to make housing development easier.

Real estate development in Canda is governed at the provincial level. As laid out in 1.2 Main Market Trends and Deals, the legislative and policy changes in Ontario in the last year are aimed at accelerating the development approval and construction process (ie, emphasising housing development and intensification; unlocking land for development; speeding up development around transit hubs; and limiting certain municipal zoning and regulatory powers to facilitate housing development.

All types of development or redevelopment in Ontario require planning or zoning approvals. In general, any proposed development that differs in any way from what is permitted under the land use planning and zoning regime requires an approval. In addition, residential development of greater than ten units often requires approval under the site plan control process – a type of planning approval. Subdividing land requires planning approval, and development that impacts heritage properties requires a specific type of approval.

Changes in ownership do not require separate approval, except to the extent that land is divided, in which case separate approval is required.

Approvals may be required for:

• development that does not conform with the zoning of a property;
• development that does not conform with a municipality’s official plan;
• subdividing property;
• residential development of greater than ten units; or
• development impacting heritage property.

Essentially, all land use planning and zoning approvals in Ontario are subject to the discretion of the municipality. However, the municipality’s decision may be appealed to the OLT.

In expropriation law, land may be taken without the owner’s consent when authorised by statute and justified by a public purpose. That public purpose may be direct, such as roads, utilities or parks, or indirect, including transfers to private entities where the taking demonstrably advances a broader public benefit, such as economic development, infrastructure delivery or environmental objectives.

Compulsory Purchase for Private Use

A relevant case where land was expropriated for transfer to a private entity is Vincorp Financial Ltd. v Oxford (County), 2014 ONCA 876. This case is a dispute over land expropriation for industrial development. The appellants, Vincorp Financial Ltd. and Blandford Square Developments Limited, challenged the legality of the County of Oxford seizing their land to facilitate a Toyota manufacturing plant. They argued that selling the property to Toyota at the expropriation price constituted an illegal municipal bonus and sought additional damages based on the land's increased value. However, the court upheld the original ruling, finding that the expropriation served a valid public purpose and followed statutory compensation rules. Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal, confirming that the developers were not entitled to extra profits resulting from the proposed development. This case was further appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada and the appeal was refused without reasons (Vincorp Financial Ltd., et al. v Corporation of the County of Oxford, et al., 2015 CanLII 27421 (SCC)).

Compulsory Purchase for Public Use

In Ontario, school boards have statutory authority to compulsorily acquire (expropriate) land for the purpose of building schools. This process is governed primarily by the Education Act and the Expropriations Act. The Education Act explicitly empowers boards to select and acquire, by purchase or expropriation, a school site or other land within their jurisdiction, subject to ministerial oversight and zoning restrictions. The Expropriations Act sets out detailed procedures for expropriation, including notice requirements, compensation and provisions for offering land back to owners if it is no longer required for the original purpose.

A leading Ontario case illustrating these principles is 1739061 Ontario Inc. v Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board, 2016 ONCA 210. In this case, the school board expropriated land for the construction and operation of a secondary school and related amenities. The Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed that the expropriation power may only be exercised to acquire a school site, and the board cannot change the purpose for which the land was expropriated. The board’s actions, using the land for joint development with the city, were found consistent with its original purpose, and the expropriation was upheld. The court also discussed the statutory “offer-back” obligation under Section 41 of the Expropriations Act, which requires a board to offer expropriated land back to the former owner if it becomes unnecessary for school purposes before compensation is paid in full.

Approval authorities have broad powers to require many kinds of studies and assessments of a proposed development prior to approval. Depending on the nature of the proposed development and the type of approval sought, these assessments can include:

• land use compatibility assessments;
• environmental impact assessments;
• assessments of noise, air quality or traffic impact;
• market impact assessments; and
• many others.

In Ontario, the Environmental Assessment Act applies to municipal and provincial governments and public organisations undertaking projects that may trigger expropriation. Environmental assessments are integral planning tools designed to anticipate, prevent or reduce environmental impacts before development or land acquisition proceeds, including expropriation for public works or infrastructure projects. Private undertakings require environmental assessments only if specified by regulation or agreement with the Ministry of the Environment.

Regulatory authorities manage entitlements for large-scale or multi‑phase projects by approving and acquiring land within a defined project envelope even when detailed designs for later phases are not finalised. In practice, approvals are tied to the project’s public purpose and statutory mandate rather than finished engineering drawings. Authorities often grant phased or conditional approvals that secure core rights up front and defer detailed authorisations to later stages. Impacts and land needs are evaluated within a maximum or reasonable footprint, allowing flexibility as design matures, and regulators retain the ability to review subsequent phases for compliance with environmental, statutory and compensation requirements.

Under the federal Expropriations Act, land may be taken once it is required for a public work or public purpose even if final alignment, station layouts or construction sequencing are not fully defined. For a corridor‑scale project like the Toronto–Québec high‑speed rail (Alto), expropriation can proceed for a corridor width and station zones based on planning studies rather than final drawings. Compensation rights are triggered by the taking itself, and supplemental claims may arise if later phases require additional land or cause further injurious affection. This approach avoids repeated returns to Parliament or restarting expropriation as the project matures.

Similarly, large municipal light rail transit (LRT) programmes often seek entitlements for an entire corridor or network while leaving intersection treatments, utility relocations and station design to detailed design. Expropriation and planning approvals are justified by the network‑level transit objective, and temporary easements, construction rights and permanent takings can be authorised broadly with refinement later. Compensation regimes address this by recognising claims for reasonably foreseeable impacts at the time of taking and permitting later claims if impacts exceed what was contemplated.

Municipalities have broad authority to impose conditions, which differ based on the type of land use approval. Conditions often relate to:

• the provision of parkland or cash-in-lieu of parkland;
• the provision of public infrastructure;
• the provision of land for road widenings or infrastructure purposes; and
• requirements for entering into various agreements with the municipality, etc.

Municipalities are empowered to require land contributions for various types of land use approvals. Monetary contributions may be required for various types of land use approvals, but their type and maximum amount is governed by the Planning Act and the Development Charges Act. The Planning Act empowers authorities to impose certain types of monetary charges for community benefits, and/or to allow the landowner to provide in-kind benefits in lieu of a monetary charge. If the owner is providing in-kind benefits, the municipality may require the owner to enter into a community benefits agreement.

Most decisions of an approval authority to deny permission for development or the establishment of a particular land use may be appealed to the OLT. The limitation periods for such appeals vary, but generally range from 20 to 30 days.

Right to Appeal for Expropriation Decisions

Under the Expropriations Act, appeal rights are primarily set out in Section 31, which governs challenges to compensation determinations. An appeal from any determination or order of the OLT lies to the Divisional Court. The appeal may be brought on questions of law, questions of fact or mixed questions, a notably broad standard compared with regimes that confine appeals to legal errors alone. On hearing an appeal, the Divisional Court may refer the matter back to the Tribunal for rehearing or further consideration, or it may make any determination or order the Tribunal could have made, effectively substituting its own judgment. Furthermore, an appeal can lie to the Court of Appeal from a judgment or order of the Divisional Court with leave of the Court of Appeal. Appeals under the Expropriations Act have historically proceeded as far as the Supreme Court of Canada with leave. Appeals proceed under the Rules of Civil Procedure, and parties must comply with prescribed timelines.

Third parties are entitled to make submissions to municipal councils as part of the consideration of a planning or zoning approval, but they generally do not have rights to appeal that decision. Third parties are generally not entitled to appeal an approval authority’s decision. Municipal councils are often swayed by third party community objectors, particularly if they are numerous.

Expropriations Act

The definition of “owner” under the Expropriations Act is very expansive. It includes not only the registered title holder but also individuals or entities with various legal interests or rights in the land, such as tenants, mortgagees, purchasers under agreement or other parties with a recognised proprietary interest. This broad definition ensures that those directly affected by the expropriation have access to the protections and remedies provided by the Act.

However, true third parties who do not hold any legal or equitable interest in the property do not have standing to bring claims or participate as parties before the OLT. The OLT restricts standing to owners as defined by the Expropriations Act, focusing on those with a direct interest in the land. That said, at the appellate court level, intervenors who may not strictly qualify as “owners” under the Act may be permitted to participate as intervenors. The appellate courts have broader discretion to allow such third parties to intervene in appeals, especially when their interests or arguments are relevant to the legal issues under review. This allows for wider perspectives and public interests to be considered in appellate proceedings, even if those parties lack formal standing at the tribunal stage.

Agreements with the approval authority are required for approval of plans of subdivision (a method of subdividing land), as well as for developments that require site plan approval. Agreements may be required for other types of approvals, depending on the type of the approval and the nature of the proposed development.

Depending on the type of development, agreements will generally set out the obligations of the landowner, which may include items such as:

• providing land or monetary contribution to the municipality;
• the provision and maintenance of various services or infrastructure; and
• standards for construction, development and services, insurance and indemnity obligations, and the like.

Section 24 and Section 30 agreements are key tools under the Expropriations Act used in the land acquisition process. A Section 24 agreement is a negotiated settlement between the owner and the expropriating authority that fixes compensation for the taking without a formal hearing. It lets the parties agree on the amount payable and resolve issues efficiently within the statutory framework. A Section 30 agreement is a voluntary conveyance of the land to the authority in lieu of formal expropriation. It typically sets out compensation and timing of possession and replaces the need for a statutory notice of expropriation. Both mechanisms allow the parties to address compensation and possession amicably, avoiding the time and expense of formal proceedings while preserving the Act’s protections.       

Land use approvals generally run with the land. If a land use application is denied, the denial is generally appealable to the OLT. If the appeal is refused and subsequent avenues of review are exhausted, the landowner may, in theory, reapply. However, the principle of res judicata generally applies to bar approval of an application identical to the one that was denied, unless there have been changes in the legislative and/or policy framework that would warrant approval of the application.

The Planning Act prescribes limitation periods for various types of appeals of municipal planning decisions. Most types of planning decisions must be appealed within time periods ranging from 20 to 30 days. The Planning Act also prescribes deadlines for municipal councils to make decisions with respect to various types of applications. These deadlines generally range from 60 to 120 days depending on the type of application. Once this deadline is passed, the applicant may appeal at any time prior to the decision being made.

Injurious affection refers to the loss in value of the part of a property that is or is not taken. Under the Expropriations Act, there are specific limitations on compensation claims for loss or damage caused by injurious affection. A person who suffers damage or loss due to injurious affection must submit a written claim detailing the particulars of the loss within one year from the date the damage occurred or when they became aware of it. If the claim is not made within this time frame, the right to compensation is permanently forfeited.

Decisions with respect to land use planning and zoning decisions are generally subject to a “fresh” hearing at the OLT, meaning that there is no standard of review that must be met. The Tribunal will consider the evidence anew, and is not bound by the decision of the municipality. It may make any decision that municipal council could have made, including approving, refusing or overturning the decision.

The OLT considers each appeal on its own merits, but it is quite common for the approval or denial of applications to be overturned. Judicial review by a court of land use decisions is rare, but appeals to the OLT are very common. It is quite common for refusals by municipalities to be overturned. In making its decisions, the OLT is bound by provincial law and policy, which is currently quite favourable towards many forms of development. Opponents of a development will require compelling evidence to thwart a development at the Tribunal.

The standard of review in judicial review of expropriation cases, like other administrative decisions, has been clarified by the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov 2019 SCC 65. If no statutory appeal mechanism is provided, the general rule is a presumption of reasonableness review: courts start with the assumption that the legislature intended administrative decisions to be reviewed for reasonableness, meaning the court asks whether the decision is justified, transparent and intelligible, and whether it falls within a range of acceptable outcomes based on the facts and law.

However, this presumption can be rebutted in specific circumstances. If the legislature has either explicitly prescribed a different standard of review in legislation or provided a statutory right of appeal, then appellate standards apply: correctness for questions of law or extricable legal principles from mixed questions of fact and law, and palpable and overriding error for questions of fact or mixed fact and law without extricable legal principles.

Owners can reduce litigation risk in expropriation by engaging early, structuring settlement discussions at key milestones, and leveraging statutory cost and offer regimes. The goal is to narrow valuation gaps, document reasonableness and create cost incentives that favour resolution over trial.

Pre‑ and Post‑Claim Mediation

Pre‑claim mediation helps align on core valuation assumptions before positions harden. Even partial settlements – on market value inputs, disturbance items or disclosure protocols – shrink future disputes and set a co-operative tone.

Post‑claim mediation, after pleadings or expert exchanges, pressure‑tests the evidence in a controlled setting. It allows owners to resolve discrete heads of compensation, refine valuation ranges and create a clear record that supports favourable cost outcomes if the authority rejects reasonable settlement positions.

Informal Negotiations Ahead of Expropriation

Early, informal negotiations are often the lowest‑cost path to reducing uncertainty:

• the scope of the taking, construction methods, access and timing, and project impacts that drive injurious affection and business interruption should be clarified;
• design drawings and studies to tighten valuation assumptions should be sought;
• staged settlements that accept advance payments while reserving complex claims should be considered; and
• all reasonable proposals and information requests should be documented – a strong paper trail improves leverage, improves the quality of any subsequent mediation and supports owner‑friendly cost consequences if litigation becomes necessary.

Costs, Section 25 Offers and the 85% Rule

Cost provisions often favour owners in expropriation, creating real budget risk for authorities that decline reasonable settlements. Authorities are incentivised to negotiate where the owner’s file is credible and transparent.

Section 25‑type advance payments and offers provide early funding and a benchmark. Owners should test the authority’s number promptly, accept advances where appropriate to reduce interest exposure, and build a record that supports compensation meaningfully above the offer.

Under an 85%‑style threshold, outcomes at or above a set percentage of a formal offer can determine costs. Owners mitigate risk by building a valuation file that comfortably exceeds the threshold and, where helpful, segmenting claims so strong components are not diluted by more speculative items.

Municipalities are able to offer a range of tax and fee exemptions and reductions to incentivise new residential units, or for specific types of housing such as non-profit, affordable housing and purpose-built rental. Municipalities are also able to offer grants and incentives to help offset costs for cleaning up contaminated land or preserving heritage buildings. In certain circumstances, municipalities may provide grants tied to the increase in property tax assessment value of a given property to help offset improvement costs.

No content provided in this jurisdiction.

No content provided in this jurisdiction.

Municipalities are empowered under provincial legislation to enforce their land use planning and zoning by-laws. Violations of these by-laws may ultimately be prosecuted in court by the municipality.

Municipalities are empowered under provincial legislation to enforce their land use planning and zoning by-laws. Violations of these by-laws may ultimately be prosecuted in court by the municipality. Municipalities, and in certain circumstances third parties, may also seek injunctions to compel compliance with land use by-laws.

In expropriation law, enforcement actions primarily concern ensuring that the expropriating authority can take possession of the property in accordance with the statutory framework while balancing the rights of the owner and any occupants. Once the statutory notice of possession has been issued, the authority has the right to take physical control of the property on the possession date, subject to compliance with the Expropriations Act. If the owner or other interested parties do not vacate as required, the authority may seek enforcement through the courts or the OLT to secure timely possession.

Both owners and expropriating authorities may apply to adjust the possession date. An owner may request a later date to allow sufficient time to relocate operations or mitigate injurious effects, while an authority may seek an earlier date if the project timeline requires it. Possession disputes can be resolved by agreement or settlement in order to avoid unnecessary litigation. Considerations often include the complexity of the owner’s operations, the impact on tenants and practical logistics of relocation.

Tenants are included in the statutory definition of “owner” under the Act and therefore have standing to participate in expropriation proceedings, including claims for compensation and applications related to possession. Their interests must be considered in enforcement actions, particularly if they occupy the property or hold significant lease rights. The OLT balances these interests alongside the authority’s need to take possession, exercising discretion over possession dates and related relief.

Enforcement in expropriation involves securing possession while accommodating legitimate timing and relocation concerns, considering tenant rights and relying on the tribunal’s statutory discretion rather than typical civil remedies. Agreements between parties are common, but the tribunal retains authority to impose timelines and resolve disputes where settlements cannot be reached.

Lobbying restrictions and disclosure requirements vary from municipality to municipality. In Ontario elections, only individuals normally resident in Ontario may contribute to candidates for municipal election. Contributions are capped at CAD1,200 per person per candidate, and CAD5,000 total per election to candidates running for offices on the same council. Candidates may not accept campaign contributions from corporations.

Any documents submitted to a municipality as part of a land use approval application are presumptively subject to potential disclosure through the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. However, the Act has mandatory exemptions for certain types of information, including personal information, as well as sensitive technical, financial, commercial and labour relations information.

In expropriation proceedings, document disclosure largely mirrors civil procedure, recognising that these statutory claims are adjudicated through adversarial processes akin to ordinary litigation. The alignment promotes fairness, transparency and effective case preparation by ensuring parties understand the claims, the evidence and the expert opinions in issue.

At the outset, parties must articulate their positions through pleadings or equivalent statements that identify the land, the nature of the taking and the compensation sought, paralleling civil requirements to set out material facts and relief. Disclosure obligations require the production of relevant documents within a party’s possession, custody or control, including appraisals, planning studies, environmental reports, correspondence and contracts bearing on market value, injurious affection and statutory entitlements. Tribunals may require affidavits or detailed lists of documents to structure this exchange, much like civil discovery.

Expert evidence follows the familiar civil model. Valuation, environmental and engineering experts must deliver reports and methodologies in advance so that opposing parties can test opinions through cross‑examination and reply evidence. Procedural tools, such as motions to compel, orders addressing incomplete production and timetables, manage disclosure disputes and keep matters on track.

Relevance and proportionality guide the scope of production, balancing the need for comprehensive information against burden and cost so disclosure remains focused and efficient. Tribunals can sanction non‑compliance by drawing adverse inferences, limiting evidence or awarding costs, reinforcing that expropriation cases are conducted with the same rigour and discipline expected in civil litigation.