Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: October 24, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000557
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 7 of the Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.26.
Appellant: Seungyong Lee and Yeonsoo Lee
Expropriating Authority: Regional Municipality of Halton
Description: Hearing of Necessity
Reference Number: 036343.000068
Property Address: 8344 Ninth Line
Municipality/UT: Halton Hills/Halton
OLT Case No: OLT-25-000557
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-25-000557
OLT Case Name: Lee v. Halton (Region)
Heard: September 29, 2025, in person
| Parties | Counsel/Representative* |
|---|---|
| Regional Municipality of Halton | Lou Fortini Jing Bo Yu |
| Seungyong Lee and Yeonsoo Lee | Self-represented* |
REPORT of the tribunal DELIVERED BY HUGH S. WILKINS
1This is the report arising from a Hearing of Necessity held under s. 7 of the Expropriations Act requested by Seungyong Lee and Yeonsoo Lee (“Requestors”) regarding the proposed expropriation of portions of their property located at 8344 Ninth Line (“subject property”), in the Town of Halton Hills (“Town”). It arises from an application by the Regional Municipality of Halton (“Region”), as an expropriating authority, for approval to expropriate specific interests in the subject property.
2The purpose of a Hearing of Necessity is for the Tribunal to inquire into whether the proposed taking of lands is fair, sound, and reasonably necessary in the achievement of the expropriating authority’s objectives. Pursuant to s. 7 of the Expropriations Act, the Tribunal is to issue a report of the hearing providing a summary of the evidence and arguments advanced by the Parties, the Tribunal’s findings of fact, and the Tribunal’s opinion on the merits of the application for approval to expropriate the subject interests in land along with the reasons for the Tribunal’s opinion.
The Application for Approval to Expropriate and Purpose of the Project
3By Notice of Application, dated July 10, 2025, the Region seeks approval from its approving authority, The Council of the Regional Municipality of Halton, to expropriate Parts 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the subject property on Draft Reference Plan 19-13-2B (attached as Attachment 1 to this Report). The proposed expropriation is for the purpose of facilitating infrastructure improvements and the widening of Ninth Line (Regional Road 13) from Steeles Avenue (Regional Road 8) to 10 Side Road (Regional Road 10) in the Town along with associated utility and ancillary works, including utilities re-location, grading restoration, and culvert and bridge improvements (“project”).
4The proposed expropriation is for the following specific interests in the subject property as set out in Draft Reference Plan No. 19-13-2B:
- Part 5 - Fee Simple for Bridge – for the purpose of building a bridge over a tributary of the East Sixteen Mile Creek (“creek”) adjacent to the subject property;
- Part 7 - Permanent Easement for Utilities Infrastructure - for the purpose of entering and occupying these lands for facilitating the construction, installation, maintenance, and repair of public utilities and/or telecommunication infrastructure; and
- Parts 3, 4, 6 and 8 - Temporary Easements for Construction and Grading - for the purpose of entering and occupying these lands with all necessary personnel, vehicles, machinery, equipment and material required to facilitate site investigations, including geotechnical, archaeological, and design investigations, driveway works and drainage, grading together with the modification, alteration, and repair of private services including well and septic and/or general construction works necessary or related to the project for a period of five years.
Summary of the Evidence and Arguments Advanced by the Parties
The Region’s Evidence and Submissions
5The Region produced two witnesses: Scott Davis and Paul Kan. Mr. Davis is a civil engineer who works for AECOM Canada Ltd. (“AECOM”). He was qualified by the Tribunal to provide opinion evidence in the area of transportation engineering. Mr. Kan is the manager of realty services at the Region. He is responsible for the acquisition of lands for the project. The Tribunal qualified him to provide opinion evidence in the area of real estate property acquisition.
Mr. Davis’ Evidence
6Mr. Davis stated that the purpose of the project is to improve the transportation and utilities infrastructure on the Ninth Line in anticipation of future growth in the area. He stated that the proposed work is necessary to accommodate this growth, address safety issues, and provide for access to alternative modes of travel, including biking and walking along the Ninth Line.
7Mr. Davis reviewed the Region’s grounds for the taking as set out in its Notice of Grounds, dated September 12, 2025. He stated that the lands to be taken are in connection with multiple objectives, including:
- to facilitate the construction and maintenance of infrastructure improvements and widening of Ninth Line from Steeles Avenue to 10 Side Road together with utility and ancillary works that will improve north-south transportation capacity, traffic operations and safety, accessibility to existing and future developments, and alternative modes of travel through active transportation;
- to relocate hydro electrical utility poles and distribution lines in order to facilitate the construction of the road and ancillary works;
- to reconstruct existing culvert crossings and stormwater drainage channels in order to facilitate the construction of the road and ancillary works;
- to locate a temporary working area on the subject property to facilitate the construction of the road and ancillary works, including grading and driveway restoration work;
- to implement the preferred alignment and design solution resulting from the Schedule “C” Municipal Class Environmental Assessment for the project in accordance with the recommendations of the Halton Region Transportation Master Plan – The Region in Motion (2004) and the Halton Transportation Master Plan – the Road to Change (2011).
8Mr. Davis stated that the above-noted Municipal Class Environmental Assessment identified the problems to be addressed, considered alternate solutions, examined alternate means to implement the proposed solution, reported on the process, and set out the design for implementation of the Assessment’s recommendations. He stated that the options considered in the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment included: (1) doing nothing; (2) limiting future growth; (3) travel demand management to reduce traffic; (4) intersection and operational improvements; (5) improvements to other roads; and (6) widening the Ninth Line. He said the guidance criteria for the Assessment included protecting the environment, ensuring stakeholder involvement, and documenting the process. As a result of the process, he stated that the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment recommended intersection and operational improvements and the widening of the Ninth Line as the best ways forward.
9Mr. Davis stated that one of the Requestors’ main concerns is the impact of the proposed bridge over a tributary of the East Sixteen Mile Creek, which will be built adjacent to the subject property. Mr. Davis stated that there is an existing culvert that will be replaced by the bridge. He stated that the Requestors are concerned that the new bridge will not address existing flooding issues that the Requestors experience on the subject property.
10Mr. Davis stated that the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment comprehensively examined the crossing over the creek and assessed impacts on the subject property. He stated that the recommended design of the proposed bridge addresses the needs of the project without negatively impacting the subject property. He stated that the proposed bridge would facilitate the creek under the road. He stated that the existing culvert is 3 metres (“m”) wide and shallow. He stated that the proposed bridge would be 12 m wide and would facilitate the movement of the creek and would maintain the fish habitat that exists there. He stated that fluvial geomorphological studies were undertaken by AECOM that demonstrate that the proposed bridge would provide sufficient space for the creek to move properly. He stated that the geomorphological studies found the bankfull width of the creek downstream from the crossing to be 4 m and that a 12 m wide bridge would be appropriate. He stated that the existing flow of the creek would not change with the installation of the proposed bridge and there would be no new flooding or other impacts to the subject property caused by the project.
11Mr. Davis stated that the proposed bridge would be located mostly on the Region’s existing right of way and on lands on the other side of the road from the subject property. He stated that the taking in Part 5 of the subject property is primarily for a plunge pool below the proposed bridge which would provide for energy attenuation and prevent downstream erosion. He said the proposed takings are as minimal as possible.
12Mr. Davis opined that if the proposed bridge were made wider, this would have no impact on flood mitigation and would not assist the Requestors. He stated that he could not think of any designs for the crossing that would reduce flooding on the subject property. He stated that flooding on the subject property is a pre-existing condition that cannot be remediated by the width of a bridge.
Mr. Kan’s Evidence
13Mr. Kan provided an overview of the property requirements for the project and addressed the technical issues that are of concern to the Requestors, including the construction of the proposed bridge. He described the purpose of each proposed taking. He clarified that the easements for Parts 3 and 7 are for hydro pole guy wires and that the hydro poles themselves would be located in the Region’s right of way. He stated that the temporary easements for Parts 4, 6, and 8 are for construction and access purposes to allow the contractors to do grading and other work associated with the construction of the project. He stated that these temporary easements are for a period of five years to allow contractors to have immediate access, when needed. He stated that these areas will be restored after construction is completed and will be returned to the property owner. Mr. Kan stated that the taking in Part 5 would be a fee simple taking. He said it would be the location of the new bridge and plunge pool. Mr. Kan stated that infrastructure of this nature should be located on the Region’s lands and thus a full transfer in ownership is appropriate. He stated that the proposed takings are the minimum takings possible.
The Requestors’ Evidence and Submissions
14Mr. Lee stated that, in the past, water from the creek has flooded portions of the subject property. He stated that initial designs for the proposed bridge, in his view, would have reduced and stopped future flooding; but that the currently proposed design would not. He submits that a bridge width of 15 m, as suggested by Urban and Environmental Management Inc. (“UEM”) in a May 2016 stormwater management report prepared as part of its environmental study report for the Class Municipal Environmental Assessment, would help address the flood issue. In the alternative, Mr. Lee submits that the Region should expropriate all of his lands that are prone to flooding so that the Region can address the flood issue. Mr. Lee states that he is stressed that flooding is damaging his property and that water will eventually seep into his home. He stated that the flood waters are often dirty and contain garbage and that the flooding impedes him from being able to maintain his property and cut his grass.
15Mr. Lee stated that modelling that was done for the bridge in 2016 by UEM recommended a bridge width of 15 m taking into account a downstream bankfull width of 4.9 m. He said that later modelling completed by AECOM found a downstream bankfull width of 4.1 m and recommended a bridge width of 12 m. Mr. Lee stated that a 12 m bridge would not address the flooding issues on the subject property. He argues that a 15 m wide bridge should be built. He acknowledged, however, that flooding on the subject property has been occurring for some time and that the past flooding has nothing to do with the road crossing. He stated that he would like the creek’s downstream channel on his property fixed.
16Mr. Lee stated that the takings of Parts 3 and 7 regarding the hydro poles should be moved closer to the boundaries of the subject property to reduce visual impacts from the Requestors’ home. He stated that the taking in Part 4 is too close to the Requestors’ gate and should be moved to the east.
The Tribunal’s Findings of Fact
17The Tribunal finds that the proposed expropriation of the specified portions of the subject property will assist in the achievement of the Region’s objectives with the least amount of impacts on the subject property as possible. The Tribunal finds that the easements for hydro pole guy wires are necessary and will have minimal, if any, impacts on the Requestors or the subject property. It finds that the temporary easements for construction purposes are necessary. They will be of a short duration and these lands will be remediated when the project is completed resulting in little impact to the Requestors or the subject property. The Tribunal finds that the taking in fee simple to facilitate the proposed bridge is necessary and will have minimal impacts on the subject property. Based on Mr. Davis’ uncontested evidence in this regard, the taking will facilitate the creation of a plunge pool below the bridge to attenuate the creek’s energy and prevent erosion and that the proposed taking is as minimal as possible. The Tribunal also finds that, based on Mr. Davis’ evidence, the proposed bridge will not result in increased flooding impacts to the subject property beyond the existing levels.
18Mr. Kan’s evidence at the hearing was that the proposed easement relating to Part 3 of the subject property is for a permanent easement for hydro pole guy wires. However, the Tribunal notes that the Notice of Application seeks only a temporary easement for Part 3. Based on Mr. Kan’s evidence, the Tribunal finds that a permanent easement for Part 3 would be practical given the intended use for hydro pole guy wires and that such an easement would be fair, sound, and reasonably necessary in the achievement of the expropriating authority’s objectives. The Tribunal finds that such an easement would be reasonably defensible.
The Tribunal’s Opinion on the Merits of the Application for Approval and the Reasons for the Opinion
19The Tribunal finds that the proposed expropriation of the specified portions of the subject property is fair, sound and reasonably necessary in the achievement of the Region’s objectives. The Tribunal finds that the proposed takings are necessary to facilitate the project and will have minimal impacts on the Requestors or the subject property. It finds that, based on the evidence before it, the proposed bridge and guy wires meet current safety, environmental, and design standards and the takings are as minimal as can be. The Tribunal finds that the proper comprehensive processes were followed, including a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment, where impacts were fully considered, and alternatives were examined, and that the takings are minimal. The Tribunal finds that the proposed takings are fair, sound, and reasonable based on the Region’s objectives for the project.
20The Tribunal finds that the proposed takings are reasonably defensible and should be approved.
21No costs were requested.
“Hugh S. Wilkins”
HUGH S. WILKINS
VICE-CHAIR
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: www.olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248
The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.
Attachment 1