Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: April 09, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000712

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

Expropriating Authority: Metrolinx

Property Owner: Maisa Adil Hadid and Issa Mahmod Bulbul

Subject: Review of Expropriation

Description: Hearing of Necessity

Reference Number: 13459-0128

Property Address: 1450 Hurontario Street

Municipality/UT: Mississauga/Peel

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000712

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000712

OLT Case Name: Hadid v. Metrolinx

Heard: April 1, 2026 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel/Representative*
Metrolinx	K. Bezprozvannykh, J. Karban
Maisa Adil Hadid and Issa Mahmod Bulbul (collectively, the “Owner”)	Self-Represented

REPORT of the tribunal DELIVERED BY D. ARNold

INTRODUCTION

1This is the Report of a Hearing of Necessity (“Hearing”) held pursuant to s. 7 of the Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.26, as amended (“Act”) requested by the Owner of the property municipally known as 1450 Hurontario Street, in the City of Mississauga (“Subject Property”), pertaining to an application dated August 7, 2025 by an expropriating authority, Metrolinx, to its approval authority, the Minister of Transportation for the Province of Ontario, for approval to expropriate a temporary limited easement interest in part of the Subject Property legally described as Part 2 on Reference Plan 43R-38343 (“Proposed Expropriation”/“Proposed Easement”). The Proposed Expropriation is in connection with a project being undertaken by Metrolinx to construct a 20 kilometre light rail transit (“LRT”) alignment from the Port Credit GO Station to Steeles Avenue in the City of Brampton, known as the Hazel McCallion LRT (“Project”).

2Pursuant to ss. 7(5) and 7(6) of the Act, the purpose of the Hearing is for the Tribunal to “inquire into whether the taking of the lands or any part of the lands of an owner…. is fair, sound and reasonably necessary in the achievement of the objectives of the expropriating authority” and, following the Hearing, to issue a Report that contains 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 interest in the land and the reasons for the opinion.

3The following documents were entered as Exhibits at the Hearing:

• Exhibit 1 – Affidavit of Service of Victoria Deo, affirmed March 20, 2026;
• Exhibit 2 – Amended Document Brief of Metrolinx, dated March 30, 2026;
• Exhibit 3 – Affidavit of Reynaldo Velasco, affirmed March 20, 2026;
• Exhibit 4 – Owner’s Submission Executive Summary;
• Exhibit 5 – Owner’s Supplementary Submissions, dated March 22, 2026;
• Exhibit 6 – Owner’s Photographic Evidence Hearing of Necessity Submissions; and
• Exhibit 7 – Owner’s “Binder 3” Supplementary Submissions.

The Application for Approval to Expropriate

4The purposes of the Proposed Expropriation are stated in the application for approval to expropriate of Metrolinx (Tab 8 of Exhibit 2), as follows:

…for the purposes of a free, uninterrupted and unobstructed temporary easement in gross or rights in the nature of a temporary easement in gross on an exclusive basis as necessary, for a term of sixty (60) days commencing on no less than three (3) months’ written notice, to occupy and enter and re-enter at all times by all authorized users, with all the necessary material and equipment in, on, over, through, under, along and upon the lands for the purpose of driveway and sidewalk restoration and all works ancillary thereto, including, but not limited to, grading, placement and storage of soil, equipment, supplies and other material, access to any other Metrolinx lands and/or associated facilities, site clearance, including all necessary removal of vegetation, relocation, reconstruction or demolition of structures at grade and/or above and below grade including the disconnection and/or reconnection of any utilities, and temporary removal of parking areas and all other improvements.

Associated with the purposes of facilitating the construction of the Hazel McCallion LRT Project (Hurontario LRT Project) and works ancillary thereto.

5The Subject Property is located on the west side of Hurontario Street, to the south of the intersection at Indian Valley Trail, and has a house located on it. The portion of the Subject Property that is the subject of the Proposed Expropriation is legally described as Part 2 on Reference Plan 43R-38343 (“Proposed Easement Lands”). The Proposed Easement Lands are a rectangular configuration of 42.5 square metres that abut the road allowance of Hurontario Street.

Evidence and Arguments of Metrolinx

6In response to the request by the Owner for this Hearing, Metrolinx served and filed a Notice of Grounds as required by the Act (Tab 1 of Exhibit 2). In the Notice of Grounds, Metrolinx identified that the Proposed Expropriation is in furtherance of achieving the following objectives of Metrolinx:

(a) Metrolinx is in the process of constructing a 20 km light rail transit alignment from the Port Credit GO Station to Steeles Avenue in Brampton known as the Hazel McCallion LRT (formerly known as the Hurontario LRT) (the “Project”); and

(b) to restore the driveway on the property municipally known as 1450 Hurontario Street, Mississauga (the “Subject Property”) and restore the sidewalk adjacent to the Subject Property in connection with the Project, including:

i) to grade and repave the driveway entrance and sidewalk to match the grade of the newly re-constructed roadway and the existing sidewalk;

ii) to comply with any municipal standards for the driveway and sidewalk; and

iii) to ensure safe and proper grade, slope and drainage on the driveway and sidewalk…

7In the Notice of Grounds, Metrolinx stated that the fee simple interest of a portion of the Subject Property, described as Part 1 on Expropriation Plan PR-3528468, registered on August 26, 2019 (“2019 Expropriation Plan”), and a temporary easement of a portion of the Subject Property, described as Part 2 on the 2019 Expropriation Plan for purposes similar to the Proposed Expropriation (“2019 Temporary Easement”), were expropriated by Metrolinx in connection with the Project (Tab 7 of Exhibit 2). Metrolinx advised the Tribunal that Metrolinx did not take possession of the 2019 Temporary Easement, such that it expired and the work that was the purpose of the 2019 Temporary Easement remains incomplete (i.e. regrading and paving of a portion of the driveway of the Subject Property located on the Proposed Easement Lands (which are identical to the lands identified in the 2019 Temporary Easement) to “tie in” to the new sidewalk that is yet to be completed).

8Metrolinx called two witnesses to provide evidence at the Hearing: 1) Moin Khan, Professional Engineer; and 2) Kevin McNally, Professional Engineer. Both witnesses were qualified by the Tribunal as experts to provide opinion evidence pertaining to civil public infrastructure engineering matters and who each provided signed Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty Forms in connection with this Hearing (Tabs 2 and 17 of Exhibit 2).

9Mr. Khan is a Senior Project Manager, Construction, with Metrolinx. Mr. Khan provided evidence that the Project entailed construction of LRT tracks in the median of Hurontario Street and necessitated the widening of Hurontario Street in order to accommodate both the LRT and the vehicle traffic lanes of Hurontario Street. As a consequence of this infrastructure construction, Mr. Khan testified that components of the road allowance, including utilities and the sidewalk, were required to be relocated outward and in closer proximity (in some cases on partial takings of fee simple lands expropriated previously by Metrolinx) to the adjacent private properties, including the Subject Property. Mr. Khan testified that the Proposed Expropriation is required in order to regrade and repave a portion of the driveway of the Subject Property located on the Proposed Easement Lands to “tie in” to the new sidewalk that is yet to be completed (“Proposed Easement Work”). The purposes of the Proposed Easement are essentially the same as the 2019 Temporary Easement, and the Proposed Easement is required because Metrolinx did not complete the required work during the term of the 2019 Temporary Easement, which the Tribunal was advised expired on December 31, 2025.

10Mr. Khan testified that the Proposed Easement Lands are 8.5 metres (“m”) in width, abutting the Hurontario Street road allowance, and the Proposed Easement Work will be undertaken in a “half and half” approach in order to maintain access to the Subject Property at all times while this work is being carried out. Specifically, Mr. Khan testified that the regrading and paving will be carried out and completed on approximately 4.25 m of the width of the Proposed Easement at a time so that the other 4.25 m of width of the driveway is maintained for access to the Subject Property at all times. Mr. Khan testified that the Proposed Expropriation provides for a 60-day term of use because it is necessary to coordinate this work with the timing of the construction of the new sidewalk and related work on the road allowance. Mr. Khan testified that the Proposed Easement Work must be carried out after construction of the new sidewalk in order to ensure that the regrading and paving “ties in” properly.

11Mr. Khan testified that the regrading and repaving of the portion of the driveway on the Proposed Easement Lands are required in order to ensure that the slope of the driveway properly drains stormwater away from the Subject Property and sidewalk to the stormwater sewer located on the Hurontario Street road allowance.

12During cross-examination by the Owner, Mr. Khan opined that the regrading on the Subject Property is required to achieve proper stormwater drainage on both the Subject Property and the Hurontario Street road allowance and it is not possible to achieve this proper drainage by regrading work on the road allowance alone.

13With reference to a photograph, dated May 2025, in the Owner’s evidence (Page 19 of Exhibit 6), Mr. Khan testified that the new sidewalk depicted in that photograph was removed subsequently due to utilities issues and must now be reconstructed. Mr. Khan referred to the photograph taken on March 25, 2026 (Tab 18 of Exhibit 2) and testified that its depiction was consistent with his observations of a site inspection that he carried out during the week before this Hearing took place. Specifically, Mr. Khan testified that there is temporary asphalt and missing portions of sidewalk adjacent to the Subject Property currently.

14In cross-examination by the Owner, Mr. Khan opined that the wording of the Proposed Expropriation is not broader than necessary as it is not always known what may be encountered once excavation occurs, in connection with the regrading, and hence the proposed wording allows for authority to deal with any such circumstances that may arise during the Proposed Easement Work.

15Mr. McNally is a Senior Project Manager at EXP, which is a subconsultant to Arcadis (the lead designer of Mobilinx, the contractor for Metrolinx for the Project). Mr. McNally testified that the Proposed Easement Work is necessary in order to meet performance standards of the Project pertaining to safety, drainage, and access of vehicles to the Subject Property. In addition, Mr. McNally testified that the City of Mississauga requires a 2% grade slope away from the building located on the Subject Property for similar objectives of safety, drainage, and access.

16With reference to a driveway profile drawing pertaining to the Subject Property (Tab 11 of Exhibit 2), Mr. McNally opined that the existing ground profile of the Proposed Easement Lands is at a lower grade to the adjacent road allowance (including where the sidewalk is to be constructed) such that the required 2% grade slope does not, and will not, exist without regrading of the Proposed Easement Lands. Mr. McNally testified that the proposed regrading would achieve the performance standards and requirements described above as it will create a 2% grade slope away from the building on the Subject Property and towards the stormwater sewer on the Hurontario Street road allowance. This regrading will also ensure a “smooth driveway” for ingress and egress of vehicles.

17With reference to the Plan and Profile Drawing 1 (Tab 9 in Exhibit 2), Mr. McNally testified that the Proposed Easement Work will include excavation of approximately 200-300 millimetres, installation of granular material, and asphalt paving.

18In cross-examination by the Owner, Mr. McNally testified that the Proposed Expropriation Work will take approximately two to three days to complete. Mr. McNally opined that the 60-day term of the Proposed Easement is appropriate in order to ensure adequate time for the timing and construction of the sidewalk prior to the Proposed Easement Work.

19In cross-examination by the Owner, Mr. McNally testified that he measured the distance between the front steps of the building on the Subject Property and Proposed Easement Lands to be 0.9 m as the stairs are angled away from the Proposed Easement Lands. Mr. McNally disagreed with the position put forward by the Owner that the distance was 0.81 m. Mr. McNally further testified that emergency stretchers are approximately 0.6 m wide and opined that there is adequate room for ingress and egress of an emergency stretcher at the house on the Subject Property, if necessary, during the Proposed Easement Work. Mr. McNally opined that the entrance to the house may be “slightly constrained” but not unreasonably so for the short period of two to three days during which the regrading and repaving of the Proposed Easement Lands is carried out, and he reiterated the construction plan identified by Mr. Khan relating to the “half and half” approach of the work on the driveway to ensure access to Hurontario Street at all times during this two to three day period.

20In cross-examination by the Owner, Mr. McNally agreed that the Landscape Drawing 2 (Tab 14 of Exhibit 2) depicts a grading differential on the northerly “grass portion” of the Subject Property that abuts the Hurontario Street road allowance and testified that he is unaware of the reasons why these lands are not included in the Proposed Expropriation. Mr. McNally testified that this regrading would include re-seeding/planting of grass and, in his experience, the abutting owners typically provide permission to carry out this work without the need for expropriation. Mr. McNally testified that if this regrading did not occur on the “grass portion” of the Subject Property then the grade differential would be acceptable from a safety perspective as stormwater would be absorbed into the ground at this location. Mr. McNally contrasted this with the Proposed Expropriation Lands, which would contain a paved driveway that is hence impervious to stormwater absorption. As such, regrading and repaving of the driveway is necessary from a safety perspective to construct the proper slope of the driveway to ensure the flow of stormwater away from the house and the driveway towards safe disposal in the stormwater sewer on the Hurontario Street road allowance.

21Mr. McNally testified that other private properties abutting the Hurontario Street road allowance require similar work to be carried out, including as shown on the Plan and Profile Drawing 1 (Tab 9 of Exhibit 2) and, in response to a question in cross-examination by the Owner, was unaware of the legal mechanism by which Metrolinx would have the legal right to enter on to this private property (for example by way of expropriation or a “permission to enter” granted by the relevant owner).

22Metrolinx submitted that the Proposed Expropriation is “fair, sound and reasonably necessary” in the achievement of its objectives to construct the Project. With reference to the Proposed Expropriation, Metrolinx submitted that the contemplated work is reasonably necessary in order to achieve appropriate drainage and access of the driveway on the Subject Property and will be carried out in a “half and half” manner in an effort to minimize disruption of access to the Subject Property as much as reasonably possible. Metrolinx acknowledged, however, that the “half and half” manner is not referenced in the Proposed Expropriation. Metrolinx also referred to a ”two year” duration of the Proposed Expropriation that would commence on the date of registration of the Expropriation Plan but acknowledged that this two year duration is not specified in the Notice of Application to Expropriate.

Evidence and Arguments of the Owner

23Maisa Adil Hadid provided evidence at the Hearing. No other witnesses were called by the Owner.

24The Owner submitted that they “do not oppose the Project itself”. Their objection is “confined to this proposed taking at this specific location and in this form” (Page 1 of Exhibit 4). The Owner submitted that the Proposed Expropriation is not “fair, sound and reasonably necessary” in the achievement of the objectives of Metrolinx, namely construction of the Project and the regrading and repaving of the driveway on the Proposed Expropriation Lands.

25The Owner testified that the work contemplated by the Proposed Expropriation was not, and should have been, carried out during the timeframe that the 2019 Temporary Easement was in force and effect. The Owner submitted that “all substantive construction” has been completed with respect to the Subject Property and no further work is required. The Owner submitted that if there is work remaining to be completed then that work could be carried out on the Subject Property pursuant to a “permission to enter” signed by the Owner instead of through access rights obtained by expropriation of a temporary easement. Further, the Owner submitted that “no easement exists at adjacent properties such as 1412, 1424, 1430, or 1440 Hurontario…[The] same objectives [as in the Proposed Easement were] achieved from the public right-of-way at all neighboring properties” (Page 23 of Exhibit 6).

26The Owner submitted that the sixty day term referred to in the Proposed Easement does not offer “real protection” to the Owner as there is no “fixed end date” of the Proposed Easement (Page 2 of Exhibit 4). The Owner testified that the two year duration referred to by Metrolinx in its submissions is not referred to in the Notice of Application to Expropriate the Proposed Easement.

27The Owner submitted that the terms of the Proposed Easement are “far broader” than required for the purpose stated by Metrolinx (i.e. the regrading and repaving of the driveway). The Owner stated:

The proposed easement would authorize exclusive occupation, demolition above and below grade, utility disconnection and reconnection, removal of parking and improvements, and access in connection with Metrolinx lands and any other improvements associated with facilitating the construction of the [Project] and works ancillary thereto.

The Owner submitted that “those powers are not tied to any clearly defined remaining work at [the Subject Property]” (Page 1 of Exhibit 4).

28The Owner submitted that the Proposed Easement Lands are located within “approximately 0.81 metres of the sole entrance to the dwelling, creating foreseeable access and safety concerns of a kind not imposed elsewhere. Any occupation at this location directly interferes with safe access to the dwelling” (Page 2 of Exhibit 4).

29The Owner submitted that, in view of the foregoing issues raised by them, the Proposed Expropriation is not fair, sound and reasonably necessary in the achievement of the objectives of the expropriating authority, Metrolinx.

Findings of Fact and Opinion on the Merits

30The Tribunal finds that a grade differential between the driveway located on the Proposed Expropriation Lands and the abutting Hurontario Street road allowance exists and will continue to exist upon construction of the sidewalk at this location on such road allowance. The Tribunal finds that this grade differential must be corrected by regrading and repaving on the Proposed Expropriation Lands in order to meet performance standards and requirements of Metrolinx and the City of Mississauga for appropriate stormwater drainage and access between the driveway and the abutting Hurontario Street road allowance. The Tribunal also finds that the regrading and repaving contemplated by the Proposed Easement will address safe drainage of stormwater away from the Subject Property, including the house and driveway, to the stormwater sewer main located in the abutting Hurontario Street road allowance. The Tribunal finds that achieving the objective of this safe and proper grade, slope, and drainage can not be addressed through work solely on the abutting Hurontario Street road allowance, but rather, must include the proposed regrading and repaving on the Proposed Expropriation Lands. The Tribunal finds that, while the access to the Subject Property, including to the entrance to the house, may be somewhat constrained during the actual regrading and repaving work, this impact will not preclude access as the Proposed Expropriation Lands are located an adequate distance from the stairway entrance to the house.

31The Tribunal is of the opinion that the Proposed Expropriation is fair, sound, and reasonably necessary in order to achieve the stated objectives of Metrolinx, given the findings of fact outlined in the preceding paragraph above. The Tribunal is of the opinion that the wording of the purposes and the 60-day term of the Proposed Easement are fair, sound, and reasonably necessary, given that the timing of the Proposed Easement Work must be co-ordinated to coincide with the timing of installation of the sidewalk and other work on the abutting Hurontario Street road allowance. There may be unanticipated subterranean conditions (e.g. utilities) encountered by the contractor of Metrolinx when the Proposed Easement Work is undertaken, and such work may entail the site work described in the Proposed Expropriation.

32The Tribunal is of the opinion that the Proposed Expropriation should include a fixed, or calculable, “expiry date”, consistent with the submissions of Metrolinx at this Hearing, being two years from the date of registration of an expropriation plan, if the Proposed Expropriation is approved by the approving authority. The Tribunal is of the opinion that inclusion of a fixed or calculable “expiry date” provides certainty to the Owner and hence supports the element of fairness in the Proposed Expropriation.

33Both the Owner and Metrolinx advised the Tribunal that they had no submissions on any recommendation by the Tribunal to the approving authority on the issue of the Owner’s costs of this Hearing. The Tribunal makes no recommendation to the approving authority in this regard.

“D. Arnold”

D. ARNOLD MEMBER

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.