Law360 Canada ( June 16, 2025, 12:38 PM EDT) -- Appeal by appellant from orders of chambers justice regarding the extension of time to vacate a property following expropriation by the respondent. The respondent expropriated the appellant’s leasehold interest to accommodate the utility relocation work required to facilitate the Yellowhead Freeway Conversion Project. The appellant sought an extension of time to vacate the property under s. 64(3) of the Expropriation Act (“Act”), which allowed for adjustments to the mandated time for giving up possession. The respondent agreed to an extension but not for the duration that the appellant requested. A chambers justice denied further extension, which led to the appellant’s appeal. The chambers justice found that the appellant received ample notice and took preparatory steps to relocate. He held that the remedial aspects of the Expropriation Act were monetary, not possessory, and declined to address the financial impacts claimed by Selenium. The judge concluded that the focus of a s. 64(3) of the Act application was the time required to vacate, not relocate, and ordered the appellant to provide vacant possession within six weeks, later extended by two weeks by agreement. The appellant argued that the chambers justice erred by focusing solely on the time required to vacate the property, disregarding the relocation difficulties. The appellant contended that it needed two to three years to relocate due to the unique nature of its operations and the lead times required by contractors and suppliers. The respondent maintained that the appellant had sufficient notice and that any relocation issues could be addressed through compensation claims....