Three landmark expropriation decisions continue to shape expropriated parties’ rights in Québec

Over the past months, the Administrative Tribunal of Québec has issued a series of important decisions clarifying how expropriated parties must be compensated in expropriation proceedings under Québec's new Act Respecting Expropriation (the Act). Together, these decisions reinforce a fundamental principle that has long underpinned expropriation law: public authorities may acquire private property for a public purpose, but they must provide compensation that reflects the property's fair market value and development potential.

Three recent decisions in particular, Ville de Sept-Îles v. 9379-1242 Québec inc. and Ville de Mont‑Tremblant v. 9351‑2663 Québec inc., and Ville de Drummondville v. Hélène Laplante provide significant guidance on the interpretation of Québec's new Act. The first two decisions confirm that, in establishing the market value of expropriated property, courts and tribunals will look beyond existing zoning and current uses where the evidence demonstrates a realistic and valuable development opportunity. The third decision clarifies important procedural protections available to expropriated parties, confirming that expert fees are not subject to the expenditure budget approval process set out in section 74 of the Act. Together, these decisions reaffirm that expropriation legislation remains a remedial regime intended to ensure fair compensation and meaningful procedural protections for expropriated parties.

Ville de Sept-Îles v. 9379-1242 Québec inc., 2026 CanLII 19512 (QC TAQ)

The Administrative Tribunal of Québec's decision in Ville de Sept-Îles is the first substantive merits decision interpreting Québec's new Act. The case concerned a large residential development project that had been planned and advanced over a period of more than ten years before the municipality elected to expropriate the property and complete the project itself.

A central issue was the determination of the property's "highest and best use" (HBU). The municipality argued that the project lacked sufficient short-term profitability and that the land should therefore be valued largely as undeveloped acreage. The expropriated owner countered that the project had already progressed to a stage where a residential development use was not only realistic but imminent.

The Tribunal rejected the municipality's approach. It held that the analysis required by the new legislation must be conducted within a free and competitive market and that the municipality could not rely on market conditions influenced by its own subsidized land sales. The Tribunal concluded that different portions of the property warranted different HBU classifications, including residential development uses, and fixed compensation at approximately $4 million, an amount substantially higher than the municipality's initial offer of compensation.

Perhaps most importantly, the decision confirms that, despite the adoption of the new Act, the new legislation did not abandon the foundational principles that existed under the former regime. The Tribunal emphasized that expropriation remains subject to the overarching objective of full compensation and that the new statute must continue to be interpreted in a manner that protects owners from unfair economic loss.

An in-depth article on the Sept-Îles case can be found here.

Ville de Mont‑Tremblant v. 9351‑2663 Québec inc. 2026 CanLII 60559 (QC TAQ) (application for leave to appeal: 30-06-2026)

In Ville de Mont‑Tremblant, the Administrative Tribunal of Québec was once again required to determine the highest and best use of lands that had not yet been fully developed but were being held for development in light of the steps already undertaken by the owner toward that objective. The expropriated property consisted of more than 460,000 square metres of land located on the edge of the municipality's urban perimeter and identified, through ongoing planning initiatives, as a priority development sector.

The municipality argued that the lands should be valued solely based on the uses currently permitted under existing zoning. The owner maintained that the property should instead be viewed as land being held for development, reflecting its realistic prospects for integration into the urban perimeter and future residential development.

The Tribunal agreed with the owner. Significantly, it held that a property may be considered to be held for development even where the development has not yet materialized. The Tribunal found that the owner's extensive planning efforts, combined with the property's location and surrounding planning framework, established that holding for development constituted an existing use at the time of expropriation.

More broadly, the decision reaffirms the continued application of the principles established in earlier cases such as Montoni, confirming that development potential remains an important component of market value under the new statutory regime.

An in-depth article on the Mont-Tremblant case can be found here.

Ville de Drummondville v. Hélène Laplante, 2026 CanLII 60713 (QC TAQ)

In Ville de Drummondville v. Laplante, the Administrative Tribunal of Québec considered for the first time the scope of section 74 of Québec's new Act. The case concerned the obligation of an expropriated party claiming or offered compensation in excess of $750,000 to submit an expenditure budget to the expropriating authority for prior approval. More specifically, the Tribunal was asked to determine whether expert fees must be included in that budget.

The City of Drummondville argued that the expert fees anticipated by the expropriated parties, including appraisal and urban planning fees, had to be disclosed and could be challenged under the process established by section 74. The expropriated parties, however, maintained that expert fees were not "expenditures" contemplated by that provision and therefore did not require prior approval.

The Tribunal agreed with the expropriated parties. It held that the Act distinguishes between "fees" and "expenditures," with section 97 specifically addressing expert fees while section 74 concerns only certain identifiable and quantifiable expenditures. The Tribunal further found that requiring prior approval of expert fees would be inconsistent with the procedural timelines established by the Act, could undermine litigation privilege by revealing a party's strategy at an early stage, and might impair an expropriated party's ability to present a full evidentiary record.

More broadly, the decision confirms that the new procedural provisions of the Act should not be interpreted in a manner that restricts the ability of expropriated parties to fully advance their claims. It also affirms that the usefulness, relevance and reasonableness of expert fees are matters ultimately reserved to the tribunal hearing the merits of the dispute.

An in-depth article on the Drummondville case can be found here.

Key takeaways for property owners, developers and public authorities

Taken together, these decisions signal that the principles of determination of the indemnity to be provided to expropriated parties established under the previous Expropriation Act remain, despite the adoption of the new Act.

First, the tribunals remain committed to the principle of full compensation. Despite the new statutory framework, tribunals continue to apply decisions rendered under the previous act.

Second, development potential continues to play a central role in determining market value. Even where a project has not yet reached construction, a realistic and well-supported development opportunity increases the odds of an award of increased compensation.

Third, municipalities and other expropriating authorities cannot rely on artificial market conditions or narrow assessments of current zoning to suppress compensation. Valuation exercises must reflect the realities of a free market and the genuine economic potential of the property.

As additional decisions are rendered under the new Act, property owners and developers should expect further guidance on the scope of compensation available when land is acquired for public purposes. For now, the Sept‑Îles, Mont‑Tremblant and Drummondville cases strongly suggest that Québec tribunals will continue to interpret expropriation legislation in a manner that protects property owners from being deprived of the true value of their assets.

DLA Piper advised the expropriated parties using client teams drawn from its Montreal expropriation group, that includes Nikolas Blanchette, Anthony Lemke, Ming Zheng, Daniel Bélanger, Corey Friedman and Luther Mourinet.