Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE:

December 24, 2025

CASE NO(S).:

OLT-24-000819

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 7 of the Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.26

Expropriating Authority

The Corporation of the City of Waterloo

Claimant:

1899038 Ontario Inc.

Description:

Hearing of Necessity

Property Address:

9-15 Erb Street other applicable addresses

Municipality/UT:

Waterloo/Waterloo

OLT Case No:

OLT-24-000819

OLT Lead Case No:

OLT-24-000819

OLT Case Name:

1899038 Ontario Inc. v Waterloo (City)

Heard:

December 13, 2024 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

City of Waterloo

Andrew Baker

1899038 Ontario Inc, (Tricap)

Thomas E Sanderson

DECISION DELIVERED BY D. COLBOURNE AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

1This is the Report of a Hearing of Necessity held under section 7 of the Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter E.26 as amended (the “Act”). Informal inquiries are held in order to determine whether the proposed taking by the expropriating authority of an owner’s land is “fair, sound and reasonably necessary in the achievement of the objectives of the expropriating authority” as the Act states. The courts have interpreted this test to be whether the proposed taking is “reasonably defensible”.

2The parcel in question is Part of PIN 224110263 (LT) described as Part Mill Square and Part of Erb Street Plan 385, City of Waterloo designated as Parts 1 and 2 (“Lands”) on the draft reference plan for Project No. 29240-21and revisions dated March 20, 2024 (“Project”).

3The Lands are to be reconveyed to a for profit developer as a result of an agreement to swap lands. Atrium is currently the owner of two parcels in the Parking Lot Area, developed with two commercial buildings. Tricap will also lose access and parking rights to longstanding parking spots serving the shopping centre lands,

4This matter was the subject of a hearing of a motion filed by the Claimant seeking to adjourn the Hearing on the basis, inter alia, that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction under the Act to schedule the Hearing with respect to certain interests relating to the property. As advised by counsel in that matter the parties had resolved certain matters relating to both the motion and the scheduling of the hearing based on certain conditions. As a result, the Tribunal ordered that the hearing be adjourned to a fixed date. There were no further motions brought by the Claimant before the hearing date.

5As set out in the Notice of Grounds:

The City of Waterloo proposes to expropriate the Lands to create a new lot free of encumbrances to permit the implementation of the master plan for the short-term and long term use and development of certain lands currently owned by the City referred to as the North Parking Lot forming part of the property currently designated as PIN 2241-0263 (LT) all of which is currently utilized as a municipal parking lot.

6In the short term, this will improve the location, parking layout and configuration of the North Lot which will better support area residents and businesses. And this:

will permit the City to acquire the Atrium lands prior to their redevelopment and to consolidate them with the North Lot to regularize and optimize the shape of the North Lot such that there would no longer be any “intervening” lands within the North Lot. In order for this transaction to be completed, the City is required to convey the Lands to the current owner of the Atrium Lands as part of a land exchange…..

In the near term the consolidation of the North Lot will permit for the demolition of buildings on the Atrium Lands to ensure that the parking capacity currently situated on the Lands can be transferred to the consolidated North Lot as part of the “Parking Enhancement” The Atriium lands were apparently acquired for redevelopment.

In the long term when the consolidated North Lot is intensified, structured/subsurface parking can be developed that is commensurate with the increased density to be developed along with the potential for future parkland.

In the long term, the new consolidated North Lot with the associated enhancements to its future use and development, as well as, the resulting redevelopment of the lands will facilitate community improvement objectives, support the Uptown Public Realm Strategy, promote the implementation of good land use planning principles and Official Plan polities including through provision of additional residential development in recognition of Provincial Policy Statement policies and Legislation in regard to more housing and advances the social economic well-being of the City.

7The City Master Plan provides a clear plan to redevelop these lands that will add greater parking supply than what exists today while also facilitating a higher density mixed use development project in a designated MTSA and addressing a number of public interest issues such as implementing the City’s Public Realm Plan.”

8The claimant’s position is that this is not the normal exercise of expropriation power in that it ultimately conveys the lands to a developer and there are no development timelines. As an alternative the claimant suggests a land lease “allowing the City to have the Lands advanced toward development without conveying it in the meantime.”

Findings and Opinion

9As it stands, redevelopment of the Atrium lands and the development of the subject is in the hands of the current owners. The expropriation and resulting conveyance as a result of the agreement and demolition of the Atrium buildings does move the reconfiguration of the parking possible in the near term and the development of the vacant Lands in private ownership more imminent.

10I am satisfied that the proposed expropriation of the Lands is a necessary step in achieving a more coordinated and comprehensive development in the uptown on lands which have existing constraints.

15After considering all of the evidence and arguments, the Tribunal concludes that the expropriation meets the test in the Act and the summation of it as set out by the courts. The test in s. 7(5) of the Act is whether the proposed taking is “fair, sound and reasonably necessary in the achievement of the objectives of the expropriating authority”. Court decisions such as Parkin v. The Queen in right of Ontario et al, 1978 CanLII 1254 (ON CA), 19 O.R. (2d) 473 determined that the test that the inquiry officer must apply can be expressed as to whether the proposal is “reasonably defensible in the achievement of the City’s objectives”.

16For the reasons given above, the Tribunal finds that the taking of Parts 1 and 2 on in relation to the Project is reasonably defensible in the achievement of the objectives of the City of Waterloo.

“D. Colbourne”

D. COLBOURNE

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.