Farmers and landowners in Wilmot Township, west of Kitchener, have hired a law firm to prevent expropriation of their land at a fraction of its value.
Farmers in the fight of their lives to stop local governments from expropriating prime farmland
WILMOT TOWNSHIP — A solitary vulture circled the yard where half a dozen Wilmot Township farmers and homeowners met to discuss the local government’s attempt to put them off their property. The black buzzard eventually left, and just as well, because these folks were not about to roll over and play dead and lose their homes and farms.
An unexpected knock on their doors came on March 8, 2024. On the other side stood a representative from “Canacre,” announcing that they were there to acquire the property for the Region of Waterloo. Canacre is a multinational company that acts on behalf of developers “to plan, evaluate, and acquire” privately-owned lands.
The assembled Wilmot group generally gave unfavorable reports of their surprise visitors who didn’t show any identification. Their descriptions of the Canacre agents included “arrogant,” “unprofessional” and “irresponsible.” The written offers came several days later, handed over in unsealed, brown envelopes. Further, the offers were unsigned. The property owners were told they had no other option. Accept and sign quickly because the Region of Waterloo intends to take possession of this 770 acre block of prime farmland by this summer, regardless.
At this point, the property owners began meeting and agreed that the most important thing was to remain united.
As the property owners around the table described their experiences, the biggest complaint was not about the below-market-value offers brought by Canacre; it was the process — or lack thereof.
The property owners could not even discuss the matter with their elected Wilmot Township councilors since confidentiality rules prohibit council from disclosing anything discussed in closed session, which is where land acquisitions are handled.
Also, the expropriation threat is coming from the Region of Waterloo government, not the township. And while the 12 property owners in the contested block may speak to either level of government, all communication is one-way. There are no answers from the extremely tight-lipped councils.
This brutal imbalance of power has resulted in a strong reaction from many sectors in agricultural circles and civic groups. Hundreds have turned out at community meetings in protest of the government’s bullying action.
When faced with the prospect of their properties being expropriated for industrial development, the affected owners investigated changing their lands to industrial zoning so that they could reap some of the very significant increase in value such a zoning would create. However, they were informed that under the existing official plan, such a change would not be permitted.
The massive support from the community, both rural and urban, comes in many ways other than verbal or signage that increasingly appears on local roadsides. It also shows in material form such as offers of financial support for legal counsel. The group has retained a law firm from London, Ontario, which specializes in municipal, planning and environmental law among other fields of practice.
The farming community is rallying to help their threatened counterparts. There was a serious tone in one phone call: “If you want tractors, we can have 300 show up tomorrow.”
Ontario’s three farm organizations have sounded unilateral condemnation of Waterloo Region’s attempts to take this prime farmland.
This is no ordinary farming dirt. The region is famous for having some of the best agricultural land and climate in all of Canada. In fact, the first pioneers readily selected this area based on their happy discovery of the black walnut trees which proliferated here. The presence of these trees indicated rich, limestone soil very similar to what they had left behind in Europe, as author George Reaman noted in his 1957 book The Trail of the Black Walnut.
These favorable conditions quickly rewarded the hard work invested and the area provided a stable, economic foundation for the prosperity of the future nation of Canada. However, while economic development is usually in everyone’s best interest, there is “zero” consideration given to the highly-productive, agricultural nature of this specific land. One longtime agrologist raised the question, “Why is there no consideration given to different classes of land?” Many voices argued that Ontario has numerous suitable areas that are much better locations for factories over farms.
“Shovel ready land” is a term frequently used by politicians and developers and frequently so in the Wilmot takeover attempt. However, when several politicians were asked for a definition of this favored cliché, none replied with a coherent response. The general sense is that it means “the easiest to develop”, requiring the least expense to convert to industrial or residential purposes. Naturally, the location, the gently rolling terrain and favorable soils of this Wilmot farmland make it a prized development target.
That being the case, it raises the question of why Canacre came to the property owners with what is described as nothing other than a lowball offer for their land. “I couldn’t come even close to replacing my farm with another in Wilmot Township for what they offered”, stated dairy farmer Stewart Snyder.
“Balance” is another term that commonly appeared in statements from government, developers and even farm organizations. Yet there is no shared understanding of its meaning. When asked for her view on paving over the best farmland in Canada, Ontario Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Lisa Thompson replied, “It’s a fine balance,” without offering further explanation.
When affected farmer Adam Van Bregeijk heard of Thompson’s words, he quickly replied, “The balance is gone.”
As this lopsided saga unfolds, exposing the collusion of politicians and land sharks against disenfranchised property owners, who could disagree?
Can government take your land if you say NO?
The short answer is, “Yes”, but certain conditions apply. The Expropriation Act R.S.C., 1985, c. E-21 reads:
4 (1) Any interest in land … that, in the opinion of the Minister, is required by the Crown for a public work or other public purpose may be expropriated by the Crown in accordance with the provisions of this Part.”
• The major exception is lands held by various indigenous groups.
• Reason for expropriation must be given unless it’s a matter of national safety or security, in which case only general reference is needed.
• Applicable purposes include educational institutions, hospitals or other medical or health institutions, as well as energy interests, public infrastructure, the military.
• Property owner may notify the authority to have a hearing where a tribunal shall test the merits of the objectives of the expropriating authority. Such hearings seldom change the outcome.
• Land can be expropriated for the purpose of subletting to a private corporation or interest if it meets the requirement of “for the public work or public purpose.”
