Government Moves to Take City Airport Lands

Summary#

Bill 110 shifts control of key City-owned lands at Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport from the City of Toronto to the Province of Ontario. It lets the Minister of Transportation name (prescribe) specific parcels; on the set date, those lands and any City‑owned buildings and fixtures on them move to the Province. The stated goal is to modernize the airport and support economic and tourism growth.

Key changes:

• The Minister can designate certain City‑owned airport lands listed in the Act’s schedule. Those lands, and City‑owned buildings, fixtures, and improvements on them, vest in the Province and fall under the Minister’s control on a date set by regulation.
• The City is barred from selling, mortgaging, removing, or otherwise dealing with these lands and related assets. Any such actions are void, including actions taken after First Reading and before Royal Assent.
• The Province must compensate the City based on market value (current use and condition), determined by appraisal reports set by rules in regulation. Disputes go to binding arbitration. A land swap may be part of compensation.
• On a prescribed date, the City is removed as a party to the 1983 Tripartite Agreement (with Canada and the Toronto Port Authority/PortsToronto). The Province takes the City’s place. The City cannot amend or assign its rights under that agreement.
• Most lawsuits for damages against the Province related to this Act are barred. The Act states these actions are not an expropriation. Judicial review and constitutional claims are still allowed.
• The Minister and Cabinet get broad regulation‑making powers, including to address agreements that interfere with vesting, set compensation rules, and make some regulations retroactive.

What it means for you#

• City of Toronto

  • You lose ownership and control of any prescribed airport lands you own within the listed parcels, and City‑owned buildings/fixtures on them transfer to the Province.
  • You cannot sell, lease, mortgage, or remove any covered assets. Any such steps are void, including those taken between First Reading and Royal Assent.
  • You must notify the Minister of any pending dealings or litigation affecting the listed lands and provide documents and data if required.
  • You will receive compensation based on market value for current use, not future development potential. If there is a dispute, it is decided by arbitration. The Province can deduct certain recoverable costs from the compensation and may recover costs by regulation.

• Airport operator and airport businesses (e.g., PortsToronto, airlines, tenants, service providers)

  • Ownership of some City‑owned land and assets at the airport will shift to the Province once designated. Day‑to‑day effects depend on how the Province manages and updates leases and infrastructure.
  • The Province, not the City, will step into the City’s role under the Tripartite Agreement on a prescribed date. Existing contracts that “interfere” with the land transfer could be affected by future regulations.
  • The Act itself does not change flight operations or set any expansion plans.

• Government of Canada and Toronto Port Authority (PortsToronto)

  • The City will be replaced by the Province as a party to the Tripartite Agreement on a date set by regulation. References to the City in that agreement will be read as references to the Province.

• Passengers and nearby residents

  • You may not see immediate changes. The Act mainly changes who owns and controls certain airport lands and who is party to the Tripartite Agreement.
  • Any future modernization or service changes are not specified in this Act.

• General public

  • Most legal claims for damages against the Province related to this Act are barred. Judicial review and constitutional remedies remain possible.

• What is unclear

  • Which specific parcels will be prescribed and when.
  • The amounts and timing of compensation.
  • How existing third‑party leases or agreements that interact with prescribed lands will be handled; the Act allows future regulations to address this.

Expenses#

No direct public cost estimate is provided in the available material.

• The Province must pay compensation to the City for vested property based on appraised market value; payments come from provincial funds.
• Appraisals and possible arbitration will add administrative costs; no estimates are given.
• The Province may include a land swap as part of compensation.
• The Province can recover certain costs from the City and may deduct them from compensation, as set by regulation.
• The City may face costs to provide information, manage the transition, and participate in arbitration.
• No publicly available information on impacts to municipal revenues or any savings.

Proponents' View#

• The Act appears intended to speed up airport modernization by giving the Province direct control over key airport lands and the City’s role in the Tripartite Agreement.
• Centralizing ownership and responsibility could make planning and investment decisions faster and more consistent.
• Replacing the City with the Province in the Tripartite Agreement could reduce barriers to changes seen as needed for competitiveness and tourism.
• A defined compensation process, with appraisals and arbitration, provides a clear path to settle value with the City.
• Limiting lawsuits may reduce delays and uncertainty that can stall infrastructure projects.
• Broad regulation‑making powers could help resolve conflicts in contracts or titles quickly as they arise.

Opponents' View#

• One concern is municipal autonomy: the Act moves City assets to the Province and bars the City from dealing with them, including with retroactive effect between First Reading and Royal Assent.
• The Act says these actions are not an expropriation and limits legal remedies against the Province. This may raise questions about fairness and accountability compared to the usual Expropriations Act process.
• Compensation is based on current use and excludes value from special or future uses. The City could receive less than it might expect if redevelopment potential is significant.
• The Act gives very broad regulation‑making powers, including retroactive rules and the ability to change how agreements apply if they interfere with vesting. This may create uncertainty for third parties with existing contracts or interests.
• Key operational details are left to future regulations (which lands, when, valuation rules, treatment of agreements), making real‑world impacts hard to judge now.
• Public costs are unknown; the total compensation and administrative expenses are not provided.