The applicant sought judicial review to quash two Orders in Council (OICs) related to the expropriation of its lands for a transit-oriented community project.
The first OIC designated the lands as transit-oriented community land, removing the right to a hearing of necessity, while the second authorized the expropriation.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, applying the Auer framework to find that both OICs were reasonably within the scope of authority delegated by the enabling legislation.
The court rejected arguments that the OICs were arbitrary, discriminatory, unnecessary, or made in bad faith.
