A guide to partial expropriations: what are your rights

Partial expropriations are common in infrastructure projects such as road widenings, transit corridors, or utility installations. While the owner keeps the remainder of the property, the impact on how that land functions can be significant.

Ontario’s Expropriations Act (the Act) recognizes this reality and establishes a detailed compensation framework designed to address the effects on what remains. This article explains how partial expropriations work, how compensation is calculated, and what property owners should expect when only a portion of their land is taken.

When only a portion of your land is taken

A partial taking is a recognized form of expropriation under the Act. An expropriating authority may acquire part of the land of an owner without consent when exercising statutory power. Once the plan of expropriation is registered, title to the specified portion of land vests in the authority. The remainder of the property stays with the owner.

In practical terms, this usually happens when a municipality widens a road, adds a transit corridor, installs utilities, or reshapes an intersection. Sometimes the remaining land continues to function much as it did before. In other situations, however, the remainder may become awkwardly shaped or less practical to use—something like a puzzle piece that has lost one of its matching edges.

The law accepts partial takings as a routine feature of public infrastructure projects, but it also provides a compensation framework designed to address the impact on the remaining land.

How market value works when only part is taken

When only part of a property is expropriated, the Act uses a specific valuation approach often referred to as the “before-and-after” method. Under this approach, an appraiser compares the market value of the entire property before the expropriation, and the market value of the remaining property after the taking. The difference between those two values represents the compensation attributable to the taking.

This method reflects an important principle: property should be valued as a unified whole, not as isolated pieces. A small strip of land taken on its own might have little independent market demand, but removing it may significantly affect how the entire property functions.

The Act also requires that the valuation ignore any increase or decrease in value caused by the project itself. This rule prevents situations where owners benefit from the project’s value increase or, conversely, suffer a discount because the project has already reduced market perception.

Injurious affection: the centrepiece of partial expropriations

In many partial expropriations, the most significant compensation issue is injurious affection. The Act defines injurious affection broadly to include two types of losses: (1) a reduction in the market value of the remaining land caused by the acquisition, construction, or use of the public project; and (2) personal or business damages resulting from that construction or use, assessed as if the authority did not benefit from statutory protection.

This definition is important because partial takings often change how a property functions. For example, access points may be altered or reduced, visibility from a roadway may change, development potential may be affected, or circulation patterns within a commercial site may be disrupted. The law anticipates all of these changes.

Even when the physical portion taken is small, the operational consequences for the remaining property can be significant. A narrow strip of land removed for a road project may have a minimal footprint but a substantial impact on how the property operates.

Injurious affection is the mechanism the law uses to ensure that owners are compensated for these broader consequences.

Something to keep in mind

In partial expropriation cases, the physical land taken is often not the main issue. The real financial impact frequently comes from how the project affects the remaining property.

Loss of access, reduced parking capacity, awkward site configuration, or diminished development potential can all influence the value and usability of the land that remains.

For that reason, partial expropriation claims often rely heavily on expert evidence, particularly from appraisers and land-use planners who can explain how the site functioned before the taking and how the project has altered its potential.

Clear documentation of how the property operated before the project, including site plans, photographs, traffic patterns, and operational records can play a crucial role in demonstrating these impacts.

Disturbance and business damages when your property is split

In addition to market value and injurious affection, the Act allows owners to recover reasonable costs that naturally flow from the expropriation. These are commonly referred to as disturbance damages. For example, where a business operates on the property, the Act may provide compensation for business losses caused by relocation, either within the property or to another location. In partial expropriations, however, businesses often remain on site rather than relocating entirely.

Even without relocation, operational disruption may occur. Equipment may need to move, parking may be reconfigured, or delivery routes may change. Though the Act does not compensate for every inconvenience, it may compensate for these types of adjustments if they are reasonable and directly linked to the expropriation.

Disturbance damages therefore address transitional costs, while business loss compensation addresses broader operational impacts. Depending on the circumstances, both may arise in a partial taking.

That said, the Act compensates reasonable and provable consequences, not every inconvenience associated with nearby construction. General annoyance does not usually qualify as a compensable loss.

Choosing a valuation date and responding to the compensation offer

Once the approving authority certifies approval and the expropriation plan is registered, ownership of the expropriated land automatically transfers to the authority. Within thirty days of registration, the owner must be served with three key documents: a Notice of Expropriation, a Notice of Possession, and a Notice of Election.

The Notice of Election allows the owner to choose a valuation date that will be used to determine compensation. The Act provides three possible options:

• the date the Notice of Hearing was served, if a hearing was held;
• the date of registration of the plan of expropriation; or
• the date the Notice of Expropriation was served.

This decision can have meaningful financial consequences because the valuation date determines the market value used to calculate compensation. If the owner does not make an election within thirty days, the valuation date automatically defaults to the date of registration of the plan of expropriation.

Within three months of registration, and before taking possession of the land, the expropriating authority must also serve the owner with a formal offer of compensation. The offer must include the authority’s assessment of full compensation and be accompanied by the appraisal report supporting that valuation.

Importantly, the Act requires the authority to offer the owner an immediate advance payment equal to 100 percent of its estimate of market value, on a without-prejudice basis, based on an appraisal that is also delivered by the authority. Accepting this payment does not limit the owner’s ability to pursue additional compensation later. This allows owners to maintain liquidity while negotiations continue to secure full value for the land taken.

By contrast, accepting the authority’s offer as full and final settlement brings the claim to an end and eliminates any opportunity to seek further compensation. For that reason, it is important to clearly understand the distinction before signing any documentation, and the offer should be reviewed carefully with expropriation counsel.

When the remainder becomes hard to use

In some cases, the remaining land becomes difficult to use for its original purpose after the taking. For tenants, the Act provides mechanisms such as rent abatement or lease frustration where the remaining premises are no longer suitable for the lease’s intended use. For owners, compensation may also be available for special difficulties in relocation, though this head of damage is applied narrowly and typically arises only where unique site features or market conditions make replacement unusually challenging.

These issues often arise when the project creates a mismatch between the property’s original design and the land that remains. A commercial plaza might lose critical access points, or a residential property might lose essential yard depth.

Determining whether the remaining land is still functional usually requires detailed evidence. A slightly narrower driveway may not significantly affect usability, but a driveway that can no longer accommodate delivery trucks could have a major operational impact.

Resolving compensation disputes

If the owner and the expropriating authority cannot agree on compensation, either party may bring the matter before the Ontario Land Tribunal for determination. Proceedings before the Tribunal resemble civil litigation. Evidence is typically presented through expert witnesses—such as appraisers, planners, and engineers—who analyze how the expropriation has affected the property.

Cost rules also play an important role.

Under the Act, if the Tribunal awards compensation that is 85 percent or more of the expropriating authority’s offer, the owner is generally entitled to reimbursement for reasonable legal, appraisal, and related professional costs. This rule encourages authorities to make fair initial offers while ensuring that owners can pursue their claims without bearing disproportionate financial risk.

In many cases, compensation disputes resolve through negotiation before reaching a hearing. However, the Tribunal remains an important safeguard, ensuring that disagreements can ultimately be decided on evidence rather than endurance.

Recording the impact and preserving your claim

A partial expropriation can feel like someone removing a structural beam from a building that otherwise remains standing. The property still exists, but its balance may have changed. The Act provides tools designed to restore that balance. Owners strengthen their position when they begin documenting the property’s condition and operation before changes occur.

Existing surveys, site plans, photographs, and appraisals often form the baseline against which the project’s impact is later measured. As construction progresses, records of access changes, operational adjustments, and related expenses can become critical evidence in a compensation claim.

Compensation also hinges on timing.

Selecting a valuation date promptly and confirming delivery preserves your ability to ground the claim in the most accurate market conditions. A planner or engineer can then assess how well the remainder still serves its intended purpose, especially where access, layout, or development potential has shifted.

With careful documentation and the right professional support, property owners can ensure that when only part of their land is taken, the compensation process fully accounts for the impact on what remains. If you have questions about your rights or the process ahead, our expropriation team is here to help.