Expert fees excluded from the expenditure budget under section 74 of the Act Respecting Expropriation

In Ville de Drummondville v. Laplante, the Administrative Tribunal of Québec (the TAQ) ruled for the first time on the scope of section 74 of the Act Respecting Expropriation (the Act), which came into force on December 29, 2023. The TAQ concluded that fees paid by the expropriated party for expert evidence should not be included in the expenditure budget that the expropriated party must prepare when the value of the indemnity claimed or offered is $750,000 or more.

Context

On February 12, 2025, the City of Drummondville (the City) commenced expropriation proceedings of land owned by Hélène Laplante and Simon Yergeau (the Expropriated Parties) so as to develop an industrial park. The City offered an indemnity of $1,979,000; the Expropriated Parties claimed $8,147,500.

Section 74 of the Act requires an expropriated party submit an expenditure budget to the expropriating party for prior approval if the indemnity claimed or offered is $750,000 or more. The budget must outline the expenses that the expropriated party expects to incur and later claim from the expropriating party.

Pursuant to this provision, on November 18, 2025, the Expropriated Parties submitted an expenditure budget to the City that included anticipated appraisal and urban planning expert fees. On December 11, 2025, the City sent the Expropriated Parties a notice of disagreement with the budget, arguing that the anticipated expenses were excessive and that insufficient details had been provided regarding hourly rates and estimated hours. In response, the Expropriated Parties sent the City a detailed version of their budget which included the requested information. They further indicated that, should they require less expert services than anticipated, the costs would be adjusted accordingly.

The City then challenged the hourly rates and estimated hours included in the budget, considering them to be excessive. In response, the Expropriated Parties argued that expert fees are not within the scope of section 74 of the Act and should therefore not be included in the expenditure budget.

The TAQ’s Analysis

The dispute is centered on the interpretation of section 74 of the Act, a new provision with no equivalent under the former Expropriation Act. The TAQ’s analysis was based on several considerations.

First, the TAQ distinguished between the terms “fee” and “expenditure” used throughout the Act (section 97 uses the term “fees” when invoking expert fees, whereas section 74 refers to “expenditure”). Applying the presumption of consistent expression, the TAQ held that, because the legislature chose to use different terms, those terms should be interpreted as referring to distinct concepts. As a result, the reference to “expenditures” in section 74 does not encompass expert fees.

Second, the TAQ found that the procedural framework established by the Act is incompatible with a requirement that expert fees be included in the expenditure budget. Section 50 of the Act requires that an expropriated party file a detailed declaration within four months following the expropriation. Preparing such a statement necessarily requires the assistance of experts. Therefore, requiring prior approval of expert fees before such services can be retained would be unrealistic and impractical.

Third, the TAQ concluded that including expert fees in obligations set out in section 74 would undermine litigation privilege, since a detailed disclosure of anticipated expert costs could reveal a party’s litigation strategy at an early stage of the proceedings. The Tribunal also held that such an interpretation could jeopardize the expropriated party’s right to be heard. Allowing the City to restrict the Expropriated Parties’ capacity to obtain expert opinions could prevent them from presenting evidence that may ultimately prove relevant to the merits of the case. This, in turn, would interfere with their right to make full answer and defence.

Finally, the TAQ emphasized that only the decision-maker hearing the merits of the case is in a position to assess the usefulness, relevance, and reasonableness of expert fees in light of the evidence as a whole.

Outcome

The TAQ concluded that expert fees are not to be included in the expenditure budget contemplated by section 74 of the Act. Rather, only identifiable and quantifiable expenses such as relocation costs, moving expenses, and other similar expenditures should be included in the budget. The TAQ therefore dismissed the City’s notice of disagreement.

A DLA Piper client team composed of Nikolas Blanchette, Anthony Lemke, Ming Zheng and Luther Mourinet advised the expropriated party in connection with this matter.