Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: May 08, 2026
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000981 OLT-25-000982 OLT-25-000987
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 7 of the Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.26, as amended
Property Owner: Skyline Retail Real Estate Holdings Limited
Expropriating Authority: City of London
Description: Review of Expropriation
Reference Number: N/A
Property Address: 387 Wellington Road
Municipality/UT: London/Middlesex
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000981
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000981
OLT Case Name: Skyline Retail Real Estate Holdings Inc. v. London (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 7 of the Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.26, as amended
Property Owner: McDonald’s Restaurants of Canada Limited
Expropriating Authority: City of London
Description: Review of Expropriation
Reference Number: N/A
Property Address: 385 Wellington Road
Municipality/UT: London/Middlesex
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000982
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000982
OLT Case Name: McDonald’s Restaurants of Canada Limited. v. London (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 7 of the Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.26, as amended
Property Owner: Metro Ontario Real Estate Limited
Expropriating Authority: City of London
Description: Review of Expropriation
Reference Number: N/A
Property Address: 395 Wellington Road
Municipality/UT: London/Middlesex
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000987
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000987
OLT Case Name: Metro Ontario Real Estate Limited. v. London (City)
Heard: April 8-9, 2026 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
City of London
G. Sanders
Skyline Retail Real Estate Holdings Inc.
M. Helfand B. O’Callaghan (in absentia)
McDonald’s Restaurants of Canada Limited
L. Cummings S. Rayman (in absentia)
Metro Ontario Real Estate Limited
L. Cummings S. Rayman (in absentia)
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”), with respect to the following requests for this Hearing:
(a) A request by Skyline Retail Real Estate Holdings Inc. (“Skyline”), being the owner of the property municipally known as 387-401 Wellington Road, in the City of London (“Skyline Property”) pertaining to an application by an expropriating authority, The Corporation of the City of London (“City”) to its approval authority, the Council of the City (“Council”), for approval to expropriate a temporary easement over certain parts of the Skyline Property legally described as Parts 5 and 8 on Reference Plan 33R-22025 (“Proposed Skyline Temporary Easement”) and a permanent easement in certain parts of the Skyline Property legally described as Parts 6 and 7 on Reference Plan 33R-22025 (“Proposed Skyline Permanent Easement”); and
(b) A request by McDonald’s Restaurants of Canada Limited (“McDonald’s”), being the owner of the property municipally known as 385 Wellington Road, in the City of London (“McDonald’s Property”) pertaining to an application by an expropriating authority, the City, to its approval authority, the Council, for approval to expropriate a temporary limited easement interest in part of the McDonald’s Property legally described as Part 9 on Reference Plan 33R-22025 (“Proposed McDonald’s Temporary Easement”).
2The above-described proposed expropriation of easement interests (collectively, “Proposed Expropriations”) are in connection with a project being undertaken by the City referred to as Phase 2 of the Wellington Gateway Project Civil Works, which includes widening of the portion of Wellington Road between Watson Street and Wilkins Street to add continuous bus transit-only lanes and certain infrastructure improvements (“Project”).
3An additional request for a hearing that was filed with the Tribunal by Metro Ontario Real Estate Limited was withdrawn prior to the commencement of this Hearing.
4Pursuant 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, and the reasons for said opinion.
5McDonald’s and Skyline acknowledged service of the respective Notices of Grounds served and filed by the City in connection with this Hearing.
6The following documents were entered as Exhibits at the Hearing:
Exhibit 1 – Document Brief of the City, dated March 19, 2026;
Exhibit 2 – Reference Plan 33R-22025;
Exhibit 3 – Notice of Grounds with respect to the Proposed McDonald’s Temporary Easement, dated March 19, 2026 (“McDonald’s Notice of Grounds”);
Exhibit 4 – Notice of Grounds with respect to the Proposed Skyline Permanent Easement and the Proposed Skyline Temporary Easement, dated March 19, 2026 (“Skyline Notice of Grounds”);
Exhibit 5 – 387-401 Wellington Road S Traffic Review (April 2, 2026, BA Group)
Exhibit 6 – Curriculum Vitae of Ryan Williams, Professional Engineer; and
Exhibit 7 – Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty of Ryan Williams, Professional Engineer.
THE APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL TO EXPROPRIATE
7The purposes of the Proposed McDonald’s Temporary Easement are stated in the notice of application for approval to expropriate of the City (Tab 18 of Exhibit 1) as “Wellington Gateway Project”.
8Similarly, the purposes of the Proposed Skyline Temporary Easement and the Proposed Skyline Permanent Easement are stated in the notice of application for approval to expropriate of the City (Tab 18 of Exhibit 1) as “Wellington Gateway Project”.
9No other information or detail is provided with respect to the specific purposes of the Proposed Expropriations in the respective notices of application for approval to expropriate of the City.
Evidence and Arguments of THE CITY
10In each of the McDonald’s Notice of Grounds and the Skyline Notice of Grounds, the City identified that the Proposed Expropriations are in furtherance of achieving the objective of completion of the Project: The City submitted that the Project will revitalize approximately six kilometres of key arterial road between the Downtown and Highway 401, widen Wellington Road to add continuous bus transit-only lanes, and improve the corridor and utilities servicing infrastructure” (Para. 1 of Exhibits 3 and 4).
11In the McDonald’s Notice of Grounds, the City elaborated that the purpose of the Proposed McDonald’s Temporary Easement is for a “temporary construction easement” in order to “enter the lands to complete work that supports the construction of municipal infrastructure within the City’s Right-of-Way” (Para. 8 of Exhibit 3).
12In the Skyline Notice of Grounds, the City elaborated that the purpose of the Proposed Skyline Temporary Easement is for a “temporary construction easement” for “entering the lands to complete work that supports the construction of municipal infrastructure within the City’s Right-of-Way” and the Proposed Skyline Permanent Easement is required to accommodate the construction of a relocated London Hydro pole and guy wire to provide “provide structural support for the overhead conductors located on the east side of Wellington” (Paras. 8 and 9 of Exhibit 4).
13The City called two witnesses to provide evidence at the Hearing: 1) Ardian Spahiu, Professional Engineer, who was qualified by the Tribunal as an expert to provide opinion evidence pertaining to transportation design engineering; and 2) Ron LaPier, Professional Engineer, who was qualified by the Tribunal as an expert to provide opinion evidence pertaining to the design of power distribution systems (Curriculum Vitae at Tab 22 and Tab 24 of Exhibit 1, respectively). Each of these witnesses provided a signed Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty Form in connection with this Hearing (Tabs 23 and 25 of Exhibit 1, respectively).
14Mr. Spahiu is a Transportation Design Engineer employed by the City. Mr. Spahiu provided evidence that the Project includes construction of two continuous bus transit-only lanes on Wellington Road that will improve transit capacity, frequency, and reliability. Mr. Spahiu provided evidence that the City undertook development of a Rapid Transit Master Plan that evaluated various corridors to determine the preferred rapid transit routes in connection with the construction of a Bus Rapid Transit System with dedicated transit lanes. In this regard, a Transit Project Assessment Process (“TPAP”) was carried out, and an Environmental Project Report (“EPR”) completed, all in accordance with Ontario Regulation 231/08 under the Environmental Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.18, as amended, and a Notice to Proceed was issued by the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, dated May 27, 2019 (Tab 9 of Exhibit 1). Through this process, and as an outcome, the City approved a Bus Rapid Transit System, with dedicated transit lanes, and Wellington Road, including the portion between Watson Street to Wilkins Street, was established as the preferred south corridor for this Bus Rapid Transit System.
15Mr. Spahiu testified that the City’s Official Plan (“The London Plan”) provides that the subject portion of Wellington Street is designated as a “Rapid Transit Boulevard”, and, as such, the “vehicle zone” shall be “divided and/or separated” (Tab 16 of Exhibit 1). Further, the “Complete Streets Design Manual”, as approved by the Council, provides that “the preferred right-of-way width for [Rapid Transit Boulevards] is fifty metres” in order to accommodate the required infrastructure, including separated vehicle zones (Tab 2 of Exhibit 1). Mr. Spahiu testified that the road allowance width of Wellington Road in some areas is narrower than the required width of 50 metres. Mr. Spahiu testified that the road allowance adjacent to the Skyline Property and McDonald’s Property is approximately 47.13 metres.
16Mr. Spahiu testified that efforts are made to minimize the impacts to adjacent private property in obtaining the necessary width, including, for example, dispensing with tree planting on some boulevards. Mr. Spahiu testified that in an urban environment it is difficult to accommodate all infrastructure in the existing road allowance, such as the case in the vicinity of the Proposed Expropriations. Mr. Spahiu referred to The London Plan’s provision for the City to acquire land through “purchase, expropriation, dedication, land exchange, or other means” in connection with the development of infrastructure, such as that contemplated by the Project (Tab 16 of Exhibit 1).
17Mr. Spahiu testified that the Proposed Skyline Temporary Easement is required in order to connect lateral servicing connections to the main pipes in the road allowance, provide for trench slope stability in carrying out the infrastructure work, and to carry out re-grading in order to “tie-in” the finished grade slope between the Skyline Property and the adjacent road allowance”.
18Mr. Spahiu testified that the Proposed McDonald’s Temporary Easement is required in order to reconstruct servicing lateral connections, including a stormwater lateral, carry out required “tie-in” regrading, and to relocate a landscape wall that will be “pushed back” on to the McDonald’s Property.
19Mr. Spahiu opined that the Proposed Skyline Temporary Easement and the Proposed McDonald’s Temporary Easement are required in order to complete the above-described work to implement the Project safely and appropriately.
20Mr. Spahiu opined that the Proposed Skyline Permanent Easement is required as the London Hydro pole and guy wire can not be accommodated spatially on the Wellington Road road allowance, as improved by the Project.
21In cross-examination by Skyline, Mr. Spahiu testified that the Project contemplates the construction of bus rapid transit lanes and will result in the elimination of left turn vehicular movements at the current full movement access of the North Driveway to the Skyline Property (as referred to at p. 3 of Exhibit 5). Mr. Spahiu testified that the EPR, with reference to Appendix E1, included a traffic analysis, but agreed that it did not include analysis of the traffic in relation to the Skyline Property specifically and he could not opine on whether the Skyline Property has the “largest volume of trip generations”. Mr. Spahiu could not opine on the number of other properties that are “losing” left turn movements as a result of the Project. Mr. Spahiu testified that there are existing medians in other locations on Wellington Road that preclude left turn movements to/from adjacent private properties. Mr. Spahiu testified that the TPAP concluded that no signalized intersection is warranted at the North Driveway location and that a request by Skyline to include such an intersection was “not supported on technical review”. Mr. Spahiu clarified that analysis and determination of traffic signal warrants is outside of his expertise. Further, Mr. Spahiu testified that he could not opine on whether the addition of a signalized intersection at the North Driveway would adversely affect the operation of the Bus Rapid Transit System.
22In cross-examination by Skyline, Mr. Spahiu opined that, in general, a signalized intersection requires “more land”, including potentially land to protect sightlines for the safe operation of the intersection.
23In cross-examination by McDonald’s, Mr. Spahiu testified that the driveways of the McDonald’s Property could accommodate both right and left vehicular turns currently (albeit in accordance with the site plan operation), while the Project will eliminate left turn movements to the McDonald’s Property. Mr. Spahiu testified that, during the construction of the Project, there will be efforts to maintain access at all times but short-term closures may be necessary and that these situations would be coordinated with the affected property owners. Mr. Spahiu testified that the existing landscape wall is located on road allowance and will be “moved back” on to the McDonald’s Property as part of the Project. Mr. Spahiu testified that the purpose of the wall is “purely aesthetic” and it would be McDonald’s option if McDonald’s wishes this wall to be reconstructed on its property.
24In cross-examination, Mr. Spahiu testified that the Proposed McDonald’s Temporary Easement will be required for a period ending December 31, 2028, and opined that this expiry provides for a period of three years being two years of construction and one year for any required contractor warranty work. In response to a question about this timing, given that with the elapse of time there will not be a period of three years from the possible date of registration of an Expropriation Plan and December 31, 2028, Mr. Spahiu opined that he was confident that the required work on the Proposed McDonald’s Temporary Easement lands could be completed by this latter date.
25Mr. LaPier provided professional electrical engineering services in connection with the Project, including consideration of the proposed relocation of the London Hydro pole and guy wire on the Proposed Skyline Permanent Easement. Mr. LaPier testified that there is an existing guy wire located on the Skyline Property. Mr. LaPier testified that, as the main feeder electrical line on the east side of Wellington Road is being relocated outward, the existing pole (and guy wire) on the west (Skyline) side of Wellington Road needs to be relocated to align with the east side pole to provide appropriate structural support that will withstand the forces of weather such as wind, ice, and storms. Mr. LaPier opined that the guy wire and anchor must be located a certain distance from the pole in order to contribute to that structural support and, in this case, the distance requires that both the pole and the guy wire with anchor be located on the Skyline Property.
26In closing submissions, the City submitted that the evidence established that the Proposed Expropriations are fair, sound, and reasonably necessary in the achievement of the objectives of the City. The City submitted that the objectives of the Project address the public interest of public transit and the environmental assessment process identified Wellington Road as part of the preferred alignment for bus rapid transit. The City submitted that the evidence at the Hearing established that Wellington Road needs to be widened, and infrastructure work undertaken by the City, in order to achieve the City’s objectives. The City submitted that the issue of whether the North Driveway should be the location for a signalized intersection was not a consideration for the Hearing.
Evidence and Arguments of SkylinE
27Skyline called one witness, Ryan Williams, who was qualified as an expert to provide opinion evidence on the subject matter of transportation engineering (Exhibit 6) and provided a signed Acknowledgment of Expert’s Duty (Exhibit 7).
28The City objected to the PowerPoint document entitled “387-401 Wellington Road S Traffic Review”, dated April 2, 2026, being entered as an exhibit in evidence at the Hearing; however, Skyline clarified that the relevance of this document relates to the impact of the Proposed Skyline Temporary Easement on traffic movements and alternatives to “right in-right out only” traffic movements at the North Driveway. The Tribunal allowed the document to be entered as an exhibit in evidence in order to hear evidence and determine its relevance and materiality in relation to the Proposed Skyline Temporary Easement.
29Mr. Williams testified that the Skyline Property is approximately 14 acres in size with approximately 140,000 square feet in lease space, 30 tenants, and 650 parking spaces. Mr. Williams opined that precluding left turn access to the North Driveway will “worsen operations” for eastbound left turns at the driveway access to the Skyline Property located on Commissioners Road and increase the volume of U-turns at the (signalized) intersection of Wellington Road and Base Line Road East.
30Mr. Williams also opined on a potential scenario in which a signalized intersection is constructed at the North Driveway, including the potential to relocate the hospital access on the east side of Wellington Road to align with this intersection. Mr. Williams opined on the potential “bus delay estimation” resulting from such signalized intersection that would stop buses to allow for left turn movements (pgs. 11 and 12 of Exhibit 5) and that bus delay could be “reduced through signal timing co-ordination and signal priority measures”. Mr. Williams testified that he had no opinion on the land requirements for signalized intersections as that was outside of his expertise.
31In cross-examination by McDonald’s, Mr. Williams acknowledged the location of the McDonald’s driveways immediately northwest of the potential signalized intersection.
32In cross-examination by the City, Mr. Williams testified that he did not carry out any design work for the potential signalized intersection at the North Driveway. Mr. Williams also testified that his evidence, including the document entered as Exhibit 5, pertain to the impact of the competed Project and not the impact of the use of the Proposed Skyline Temporary Easement by the City and its contractors/agents.
33In response to a question by the Tribunal, Mr. Williams testified that he has not undertaken any traffic movement modelling for the construction period of the Project (i.e. the term of the Proposed Skyline Temporary Easement). Mr. Williams clarified that there are, and will remain, a right and left vehicular movement access (“full movement”) to the Skyline Property from Commissioners Road (west of Wellington Road) and a right turn vehicular movement access at the South Driveway on Wellington Road. The only change to access upon the completion of the Project will be that the North Driveway will change from full movement to right turn vehicular access only.
34In closing submissions, Skyline submitted that, in view of the foregoing issues raised by them in relation to the elimination of vehicular left turn movements at the North Driveway, the Proposed Skyline Temporary Easement is not fair, sound, and reasonably necessary in the achievement of the objectives of the expropriating authority, the City. Skyline submitted that the City must demonstrate that not only the Proposed Skyline Temporary Easement meets all three of these criteria but also whether the outcome of the Project meets these three criteria. With respect to the outcome (i.e. the elimination of left turn movements at the North Driveway), Skyline submitted that the City should have assessed whether there are other potential takings that could better meet the test. In this case, Skyline submitted that there is a “reasonable alternative” that should have been analyzed by the City, that being the signalization at the North Driveway to preserve full vehicular movements.
EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS OF MCDONALD’S
35McDonald’s called no witnesses.
36McDonald’s submitted that, although the City has the right to implement bus rapid transit, McDonald’s questions whether its implementation is minimally impactful. Moreover, McDonald’s submitted that the proposed terms and use of the Proposed McDonald’s Temporary Easement are ill-defined, or even not defined, and no term is set out in the Application to Expropriate. McDonald’s submitted that the Notice of Application to Expropriate (Tab 18 of Exhibit 1) refers only to “Temporary Easement”. The McDonald’s Notice of Grounds refers only to construction purposes and states that the term will expire on December 31, 2028. McDonald’s submitted that the evidence of the City was unclear whether the use will be “exclusive” and if access to the McDonald’s Property will be maintained. McDonald’s submitted that there will be permanent impacts to the McDonald’s Property as a result of Proposed McDonald’s Temporary Easement work with respect to the construction of a landscape wall and manhole covers. Further, the outcome of the Project will be that access driveways of the McDonald’s Property will be reduced from vehicular full movements to right in-right out only movements.
Findings of Fact and Opinion on the Merits
37There was uncontroverted evidence at the Hearing through the testimony of Ron LaPier and the Tribunal finds that the purpose of the Proposed Skyline Permanent Easement is to locate a pole and guy wire with anchor that will provide appropriate structural support to the main electrical distribution line that will be relocated on the east side of Wellington Road. The Tribunal finds that this hydro pole and guy wire with anchor relocation is required in order to achieve the objectives of the Project to widen Wellington Road to include bus rapid transit and make other infrastructure improvements described in the Project. The Tribunal is of the opinion that the Proposed Skyline Permanent Easement is fair, sound, and reasonably necessary in the achievement of these objectives of the City.
38The Tribunal finds that the purposes of the Proposed Skyline Temporary Easement are to enter on to the Skyline Property to connect lateral servicing connections to the main pipes in the road allowance, provide for trench slope stability in carrying out infrastructure construction work, and to carry out re-grading in order to “tie-in” the finished grade slope between the Skyline Property and the adjacent road allowance. The Tribunal finds that the preponderance of the evidence established that this work is required in order to complete the work of the Project and can not be accomplished without entering on to the Skyline Property. The Tribunal finds that there was no compelling evidence that a different land taking, such as an unspecified configuration of a fee simple taking to accommodate a signalized intersection at the North Driveway would change or obviate the need for the above-described work on the Skyline Property. As such, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the Proposed Skyline Temporary Easement, is fair, sound, and reasonably necessary in the achievement of the objectives of the City to complete the Project.
39The Tribunal finds that the purposes of the Proposed McDonald’s Temporary Easement are to enter on to the McDonald’s Property to reconstruct servicing lateral connections, including a stormwater lateral, required “tie-in” regrading, and to relocate a landscape wall that will be “pushed back” on to the McDonald’s Property. The Tribunal finds that a preponderance of the evidence established that this work can only be accomplished by entering on to the lands comprising the Proposed McDonald’s Temporary Easement. The Tribunal is of the opinion that the Proposed McDonald’s Temporary Easement is fair, sound, and reasonably necessary in the achievement of the objectives of the City to complete the Project.
40The Tribunal reiterates that the purpose of this Hearing is set out in ss. 7(5) of the Act, specifically 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.” [emphasis added] The Proposed Skyline Temporary Easement, the Proposed Skyline Permanent Easement, and the Proposed McDonald’s Temporary Easement, and the purposes thereof, as described above, do not in and of themselves result in the outcome of eliminating left turn vehicular movements at the North Driveway. In view of the foregoing, the Tribunal declines to opine on the evidence that an outcome of the Project may include the elimination of vehicular left turn movements at the North Driveway.
41The Tribunal is of the opinion that the Proposed Skyline Temporary Easement and the Proposed McDonald’s Temporary Easement should include a fixed, or calculable, “expiry date”. The Tribunal finds that the evidence of the City was unclear with respect to the duration of these Proposed Temporary Easements. The McDonald’s Notice of Grounds and Skyline Notice of Grounds state that the Proposed Temporary Easements would expire on December 31, 2028, while Mr. Spahiu testified at the Hearing that a duration of three years is required. A period of three years, ending on December 31, 2028, is not possible since the Proposed Expropriations have not been approved as yet nor, therefore, have the Expropriation Plans been registered on title to the Skyline Property and the McDonald’s Property. The Tribunal is of the opinion that inclusion of a fixed, or calculable, “expiry date” would provide certainty to the owners of the respective properties in this regard and hence support the element of fairness in these Proposed Temporary Easements.
42Moreover, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the Proposed Temporary Easements should provide details regarding the use(s) and activities that may be undertaken on the lands that would be subject to the Proposed Temporary Easements, thereby providing the owners with a reasonable degree of certainty that, again, supports the element of fairness.
43Skyline and McDonald’s each requested that the Tribunal recommend to the approval authority that costs of $200 be paid to each Party in respect of the Hearing, being the maximum permitted recommendation under ss. 7(8) of the Act. The City took no position on a costs recommendation.
44The Tribunal recommends that the approval authority pay costs of $200 to each of Skyline and McDonald’s for the following reasons. The City’s Notices of Application to Expropriate with respect to the Proposed Expropriations stated only “temporary easement” and “permanent easement” for the purposes of the “Wellington Gateway Project”. As stated by counsel for McDonald’s, it was only through the request for this Hearing and, as a consequence of such request, the required Notices of Grounds and the City’s evidence at this Hearing, that Skyline and McDonald’s were provided with information pertaining to the purposes of the Proposed Skyline Permanent Easement, the Proposed Skyline Temporary Easement and the Proposed McDonald’s Temporary Easement including the duration of such Temporary Easements. Given these circumstances, it was reasonable that the Parties requested a Hearing and the Tribunal recommends the above-noted cost payment by the approving authority in respect of the Hearing.
“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.