In Toronto's Riverdale neighborhood, some 25 properties are being expropriated to facilitate the construction of the Ontario Line, a 15.6-kilometre subway track expected to be completed by 2031. The sudden decision by Metrolinx, Ontario’s regional transit agency, to seize homes between Langley and Riverdale Avenues has stirred fears and frustrations among residents. This move raises fundamental questions about property rights, government authority, and the future of community spaces in Canada.In Canada, land ownership is, in reality, a tenuous concept. All land is technically owned by the Crown and administered by the government, with private ownership being more akin to a long-term lease. This means that private landowners, despite appearances, are more akin to tenants, holding land at the behest of the government, which retains the right to reclaim land for public purposes—a power that has been used with increasing frequency as urban development pressures rise. The process, known as expropriation, allows the government to acquire private property for a fair market price, often under the pretext of public necessity.The residents argue that this expropriation could set a dangerous precedent, where any Ontarian’s home could be next. “If it can happen to them, it can happen to you,” they rightfully warn.The expropriation process has laid bare the underlying tension between the right to land ownership and the concept of Crown land in Canada. In many ways, such a system undermines the very notion of true ownership, rendering regular individuals powerless in the face of state power.Residents affected by the Ontario Line expropriation were initially assured that their properties would not be required. However, Metrolinx's revised assessments, informed by a better understanding of the local soil conditions, have now deemed these properties vulnerable to structural impacts from tunneling activities. The shock and anguish felt by these homeowners highlight the emotional and financial toll that such decisions can impose on individuals who believed they had secured a lasting place in their community.Imagine building a life within your community of choice, hoping to retire and live out your time in peace, only to be told you must move out by a certain date and be gone. No recourse.The broader issue at stake is not merely the disruption of lives but the fundamental question of whether true private ownership exists in a country where the government can seize property under the authority of eminent domain. In Canada, the concept of eminent domain allows the government to expropriate land for public use, often with the promise of fair market compensation. However, this process raises ethical concerns about the balance of power between the state and the individual.Historically, the right to own property has been seen as a cornerstone of personal freedom and economic prosperity. In a free market, individuals have the incentive to acquire and use property in ways that benefit not only themselves but society as a whole. When the government retains the ultimate authority over land, this incentive is diminished, and the security of ownership is subject to the whims of governments.This reality is further complicated by the fact that the right to private property was intentionally left out of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982. This exclusion, championed by then-Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and the provincial premiers, was driven by concerns that such a right would limit the government's ability to expropriate land for infrastructure projects. As a result, Canadians find themselves in a precarious position, where the legal framework does not fully protect their property rights.The ethical dilemma extends beyond the legality of expropriation to the morality of forcibly removing individuals from their homes. The concept of eminent domain may be legally sanctioned, but it often conflicts with fairness and justice. Society faces a slippery slope where respect for the law and integrity are at odds.In London, Ontario, a similar case is unfolding, where the city council is likely to expropriate a property owned by a frail retired individual who has no desire to move.&nbsp;The controversy surrounding expropriation is not limited to legal and economic considerations. It also touches on the deeper issue of inequality before the law. While politicians often decry economic inequality, they remain conspicuously silent about the unequal treatment of citizens under the law, particularly when it comes to property rights. The power to expropriate land is a tool that can be wielded to benefit special interest groups at the expense of ordinary citizens, perpetuating a system that favors the few over the many.The residents of Riverdale, who must vacate their homes by November 1, 2025, are not merely losing their properties; they are being confronted with the unsettling reality that their ownership was never as secure as they believed.Metrolinx justifies the expropriation by citing concerns over local soil conditions and the potential impact of tunneling on the structural integrity of these homes. The agency claims that this action is necessary to ensure safety during the construction of the Ontario Line, which began in December 2021 and is expected to be completed by 2031. Yet, the abruptness of the decision and the lack of clear communication have left many residents feeling blindsided.Critics of the project argue that the timing of the expropriation is opportunistic, taking advantage of a weak real estate market and high interest rates to acquire properties at lower costs. Some believe that these homes or the new ones built on the same stretch of land will eventually be resold at a significant profit once the market rebounds.There is also an issue of the compensation or “fair market value.” Metrolinx insists that it offers compensation based on fair market value, determined by independent appraisals. However, residents argue that this doesn’t come close to covering the true cost of expropriation, which includes not just the loss of property, but the disruption of lives and communities. Many believe that compensation should include a 50% premium above market value to account for these additional hardships. “Fair market value is not remotely close to covering the amount of disruption that expropriation inflicts,” said one concerned citizen.Adding to the frustration is the belief that expropriation should only be used as a tool of last resort, rather than a convenient solution for government projects. "The worst part is there are people here in Ontario celebrating the forced displacement of families as 'progress.' Where is your humanity?" lamented one community member.The situation in Riverdale has reignited calls for the inclusion of land rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Many Canadians are unaware that they do not have absolute ownership over the land they “own.” Instead, their property is subject to government authority, which can reclaim it as needed. This understanding is crucial in light of the Ontario Line expropriations. "People need to understand that the Crown can and will remove you from the land it requires," said one observer, underscoring the precarious nature of property ownership in Canada.For some, the Riverdale expropriation is reminiscent of similar cases across the province. One Toronto resident recounted how their grandparents’ home on Islington Avenue was expropriated at below market value decades ago, only to be sold later at a significant profit for condo development.As the situation unfolds, there is a growing call for affected homeowners to unite and consider legal action to counter the lack of communication and the severe inconveniences caused by the sudden expropriation. “Metrolinx could have negotiated leases with these owners at prices that made the people who live there happy,” one resident pointed out, suggesting that a more humane approach could have prevented the current conflict.However, while the expropriation of private property raises valid concerns about individual rights and the concept of ownership in Canada, it is equally essential to recognize the government's need to retain this authority for infrastructure development. The ability to expropriate property allows the government to undertake critical projects, like the Ontario Line, that serve the public interest. Infrastructure developments of this scale are crucial for the economic vitality, public safety, and overall functionality of urban centers. Without the power of expropriation, necessary projects could be delayed or derailed by individual property disputes, potentially stalling progress and leaving communities without the infrastructure they need to thrive.&nbsp;The expropriation in Riverdale is more than just a local issue—it is a test of will between the government’s ambitions for urban development and the individual’s right to property. As Metrolinx proceeds with its plans, the affected residents are left to grapple with an uncertain future, raising questions about the fairness of a system that can displace communities in the name of potential progress 10 years down the road.The alarming tale of Toronto's Riverdale neighborhood, and similar cases across Canada, highlight the urgent need for a reevaluation of property rights. The balance between public interest and private ownership must be carefully reconsidered to ensure that individuals are not unjustly displaced and that the fundamental right to own property is genuinely respected and protected.Yet, this controversy also brings to light what could have been done differently to mitigate the conflict. Perhaps residents should have been better compensated, with offers reflecting not just the fair market value, but the true cost of uprooting families and disrupting communities. Should our laws be revised to mandate compensation that exceeds the current market value, acknowledging the emotional and social toll of expropriation? These questions remain open to debate, challenging us to rethink the approach, which is a good thing.&nbsp;

Property Rights vs. the Crown’s Hold on Land: The Alarming Tale of Toronto's Riverdale

Explore the land ownership rights and controversy over property expropriation in Toronto's Riverdale, balancing infrastructure needs with property rights and compensation issues.

About RIFO

Business

Investors

News

Contact Us

Contact Us