The 30-day Hearing of Necessity window is the only opportunity to challenge whether the government should be taking your property at all. After it closes, the only question left is how much they pay you.
Important: this right no longer exists for several of Ontario's largest projects. The Building Transit Faster Act, 2020 removed hearings of necessity for expropriations on transit corridor land for a priority transit project, which covers the Ontario Line, the Scarborough Subway Extension, the Yonge North Subway Extension and the Eglinton Crosstown West Extension. The COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act, 2020 removed them for expropriations under the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act, which is how provincial highways including Highway 413 are acquired. Where a utility expropriates with Ontario Energy Board authorisation there is no hearing of necessity either. This article describes the process as it still applies to municipal, regional, and conservation authority takings. If you are on one of the exempt projects, the deadline that matters to you is the section 10 election of your valuation date, 30 days from service of the Notice of Expropriation, and your compensation rights are untouched. Since June 2021 hearings that do proceed are heard by a member of the Ontario Land Tribunal rather than by an inquiry officer.
Under Ontario's Expropriations Act, a property owner who receives a Notice of Application for Approval to Expropriate has the right to require the expropriating authority to justify the proposed taking before an independent inquiry officer. This proceeding - the Hearing of Necessity - is the primary mechanism by which Ontario property owners can contest not just the price of their property, but the expropriation itself.
Most owners never exercise this right. The 30-day window passes. The expropriation proceeds. The owner is left arguing only about compensation. This is usually the wrong outcome.
What Is the Hearing of Necessity?
The Hearing of Necessity is a statutory inquiry before an independent inquiry officer appointed under the Act. The inquiry officer's mandate is to examine whether the proposed expropriation is fair, sound, and reasonably necessary in the achievement of the objectives of the expropriating authority.
The hearing is adversarial: you present evidence and argument opposing the expropriation (or challenging its scope), the authority presents its case for why the taking is justified, and the inquiry officer writes a report with recommendations.
Critically, the inquiry officer's report is not automatically binding. The Minister responsible must consider it, but can approve the expropriation notwithstanding an unfavourable report. This makes the Hearing of Necessity sound like a futile exercise. In practice, it is anything but.
Why the Hearing of Necessity Matters Even If You Cannot Stop the Expropriation
The strategic value of a Hearing of Necessity extends far beyond a formal win or loss:
- Delay. A Hearing of Necessity adds months to the expropriation timeline. For an authority operating on a construction schedule, delay is expensive. Delay creates pressure to negotiate a resolution on terms favourable to the owner.
- Public scrutiny. The hearing is a public proceeding. The authority must explain and defend its choices. In politically sensitive projects - transit expansions, municipal road widenings, utility corridors - public hearings create accountability that can reshape both the scope of the expropriation and the compensation offered.
- A record for compensation. The evidence developed at a Hearing of Necessity - about the value of the property to the authority, about alternatives considered and rejected, about the impact of the taking on remaining land - creates a factual record that informs and strengthens the subsequent compensation claim.
- Sometimes, a changed outcome. Inquiry officers have recommended, and authorities have acted on, modifications that reduced the scope of a taking, switched to an easement rather than full ownership, or required the authority to acquire a different parcel. It does happen.
What You Can Argue at a Hearing of Necessity
The standard - fair, sound, and reasonably necessary - gives you several distinct lines of argument:
- Alternatives exist that would achieve the same public purpose with less impact on your property. A different alignment, a different parcel, a different design. The authority must show it genuinely considered alternatives, not just that alternatives were theoretically possible.
- The scope is disproportionate - a partial taking or an easement would accomplish the stated purpose without requiring full ownership. Road widenings, utility corridors, and drainage easements are frequent candidates for this argument.
- The stated purpose does not justify the scope - where the authority's public interest rationale is weak or pretextual, the inquiry officer can say so.
- The process was flawed - insufficient notice, inadequate consultation with affected owners, failure to follow the required steps under the Act.
How to Request a Hearing of Necessity
The request must be delivered to the clerk of the municipality, or to the Minister designated under the Act, within 30 days of receiving the Notice of Application. The request must be in writing and must state that you require a hearing.
Thirty days sounds generous. In practice, consulting a lawyer, assessing the proposal, identifying expert witnesses (engineers, planners, appraisers), and preparing submissions takes time. If you receive a Notice of Application, the first call should be made within days, not weeks.
The Ontario Land Tribunal and Compensation
Separate from the Hearing of Necessity, compensation disputes that cannot be resolved by negotiation are referred to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT). The OLT conducts a full evidentiary hearing on compensation issues - market value, injurious affection, disturbance damages, business losses - and issues a binding decision. Under section 32 of the Act, legal and appraisal costs are recoverable from the authority where the Tribunal awards you 85% or more of the amount it offered, so you do not have to beat the offer outright. Note the Court of Appeal held in Shergar that "the amount offered" includes later settlement offers, not only the section 25 offer, so an improved offer raises the bar and below it costs become discretionary.
For a full breakdown of compensation categories, see our article on expropriation compensation in Ontario. For an overview of your rights from the beginning of the process, read our guide on expropriation rights in Ontario. To discuss your specific situation, visit our expropriation practice page.
