Is a notice of expropriation valid or nullity?

The plaintiff contends that the notice was a nullity because it did not set out “the true purpose” of the expropriation. It contends that the expropriating authority’s purpose must be set out with great exactitude, citing the following passage from the judgment in Purchase v. Terrace (City) (1995), 26 M.P.L.R. (2d) 126 at para. 36: In order for an expropriation to be completed legally so that title vests in the authority once the formal expropriation notice is given, the bylaw must be found to give proper and clear notice of what is to be expropriated, and it must state its exact purposes. If this is not done, then expropriation will not be completed as the authority is not properly empowered to expropriate.

It is important to note that Purchase v. Terrace did not concern the adequacy of an expropriation notice. Moreover, the statement that “exact purposes” need to be set out is obiter. However, I do accept that it is a fundamental requirement of an expropriation notice that the purpose of the expropriation be set out. The expropriation notice in this case did set out the purpose of the expropriation, and it is not arguable that it failed to do so with adequate precision.