Interestingly, in a communication from the TCDSB, dated October 2013, the expropriation was not referred to as such: "The TCDSB is not expropriating, this is a voluntary sales and acquisition process." (63) It was also claimed that "the TCDSB rarely, if ever exercises its power to expropriate land to build new schools and facilities." (64) The homeowners, despite being fairly compensated for their homes, have expressed heartfelt disapproval regarding the taking of their land and the building of the school generally.
The test by which the inquiry officer makes his assessment of the expropriation is whether the "taking of the land herein is not fair, sound and reasonably necessary, in the achievement of the objectives of the expropriating authority." (79) In this case, it was found that the expropriation by the TCDSB did not meet the parameters of this test.
In addition, this study sheds light on some of the potential adverse legal implications that may occur as a result of the excessive expropriating power that boards of education have.
(86) In spring 2013, Kara was advised that the HWDSB would be expropriating the land for the purposes of building a new school and moving to convey all lands to the City of Hamilton "for purposes of the City operating a seniors' center similar to the one that was going to be built by Kara." (87) Moreover, the property would be conveyed to the City without providing Kara the right of first refusal.
42 of the Expropriations Act in that it may allow for expropriating authorities, particularly school boards, to shift their purposes from those prescribed in the original Notice of Expropriation.
From a public benefit perspective, expropriating land to enlarge a school seems problematic where most, if not all, reports have indicated that it is a) unnecessary, b) impractical, and c) displaces people.
(182) Moving to Scott Park, the expropriating school board eventually conveyed the condemned land to the municipality for uses not directly related to building a school, and yet no barriers to the expropriation existed.
There is a recurring theme evident here: there are not enough limitations on expropriating bodies in Ontario.
Malecdan's March 11 decision states that the court had "monumental reservations as to the genuine primary purpose [of the Magat project] putting in question the genuine necessity of
expropriating [the Tomas] farmlands." The judge observed that the Mariis reservoir expansion project may benefit the hydroelectric plant more than NIA's irrigation services, because a bigger volume of water grants the dam operators a much longer time to generate electricity.
