In the attached articles in downloadable PDF elaborates rather well in support of our position.
Expropriation is Undesirable to Owners- ( Shane Raymond,LLP Article)
Land ownership is often considered sacred. Although not an entrenched constitutional right3 , land ownership is nonetheless regarded as a fundamental right in Canadian society.
Land ownership is also frequently linked to sentiments of prestige and self-autonomy.
Historically, land ownership has been a necessary prerequisite for voter eligibility4 and to this day, it serves to qualify individuals for Senate eligibility.
It follows that landowners generally feel that the alienation of property should occur as a result of the owner’s prerogative and on terms favourable to the landowner.
"In Dell Holdings Ltd. v. Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority, the Supreme Court of Canada characterized the power of expropriation in the following manner:
The expropriation of property is one of the ultimate exercises of governmental authority. To take all or part of a person's property constitutes a severe loss and a very significant interference with a citizen's private property rights."
The framers of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms expressly excluded the word “property” from Section 7 of the Charter, which protects the right to “Life, Liberty and Security of Person”.
The courts have generally interpreted this section of the Charter to exclude the protection of property rights while leaving open the protection of property only as it relates to the “security of the person”.
At the time of Confederation, only men who met certain property requirements were eligible to vote in federal elections. Section 23(4) of the Constitution Act, 1867 states that to qualify for the Senate, a senator’s real and personal property “shall be together worth four thousand dollars over and above his debts and liabilities.”
Dell Holdings Ltd. v. Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority, [1997] -
It is not uncommon for owners to feel threatened or violated when faced with the prospect of expropriation.
This may lead to owners becoming defensive towards the expropriating authority and advancing positions that are counter-productive to the overall process. Such action can manifest itself in unreasonable conduct or even in extreme instances, civil disobedience.
R. B. Robinson summarized this position in his Report on the Expropriations Act when he stated that “since expropriation involves the power to acquire land without the owner’s consent, it will always be met with resentment.”
Whether expropriation is always met with resentment is perhaps an overstatement; however, it is fair to say that expropriation is often met with resentment, particularly when owners have a special attachment to their land, as they often do.
From an objective perspective, expropriating authorities may believe that a hostile reaction from an owner facing an expropriation is not warranted under a fair system of compensation. However, the likelihood of fair compensation at the end of the process does not necessarily make expropriation an agreeable experience for owners, especially when many owners may not even be aware of their rights and entitlements under the Expropriations Act.
Arriving at fair compensation pursuant to the Expropriations Act is often a complicated process which entails a substantial sacrifice of an owner’s time and the commitment of resources to the pursuit of compensation.
The process also usually entails intangible effects on owners such as feelings of stress, anxiety and uncertainty.
Ontario, Ministry of the Attorney General, Report on the Expropriations Act by R.B. Robinson (Toronto: Ministry of the Attorney General, 1974) at 1. 8 R.S.O. 1990, c. E.26 (hereinafter referred to in this text as the “Expropriations Act”). States
"Although the Expropriations Act is intended to make owners whole, the Act does not contemplate compensation for stress and personal anxiety."
The procedural rights granted to owners under the Expropriations Act may result in delay to an authority’s ability to take possession of required lands. In particular, the inquiry process 11 under the Expropriations Act into whether an expropriation is fair, sound and reasonably necessary can take a significant period of time to schedule and complete.
This process can result in a delay to the intended land acquisition.
Such delays can be costly to authorities as construction contracts linked to expropriation works often contain provisions for significant liquidated damages where delay is attributable to the authority.
In addition, public projects requiring expropriation often benefit from funding from upper tiers of government conditional on funds being disbursed by the lower tier authority within a limited timeframe. The receipt of this type of funding can be jeopardized by delays precipitated by the procedural requirements under the Expropriations Act.
The City relied on the funding from the upper tiers of government involving the City's Bid involving International Games event that involved the Environmental Construction Remediation of the lands and the construction of a Stadium Precinct.
The City of Hamilton Council, in 2000, 2006,2008 and 2010 evidently following the recommendations by Art Zuidema of the City Legal Department, supressed its intended Stadium Precinct Plan evidence from me while confiscating our development rights and constructively expropriating our Licenced Auto Salvage Yard business operations.
It has been a challenging process, and as LPAT has taken the position that it has no Jurisdiction in the matter.
I am currently in the process of taking the Constructive Expropriation Claim before the Superior Court of Justice as evidently it does have Jurisdiction in the matter as evidenced in the Supreme Court of Canada Ruling in the CP Rail vs City of Vancouver case (2006) 1 SCR 227.