Impala cannot use expropriation to secure mine power-line easements, Ontario board confirms

The Ontario Energy Board has rejected Impala Canada Ltd.’s attempt to overturn a decision denying it access to expropriation powers for a transmission line serving its Lac des Iles mine.

In its October 8, 2026 decision, EB-2026-0178, the board found no clear and material error in the original panel’s interpretation of the Ontario Energy Board Act. A company’s wish to maintain an existing line was not enough to qualify it to seek compulsory land rights.

The decision confirmed the refusal of Impala’s application for permanent corridor easements over two parcels near Thunder Bay. It did not decide that the proposed expropriation failed the public-interest test: the company had not crossed the earlier statutory eligibility threshold.

A power line built before the modern approval system

The 115-kilovolt line was built in 1996 by Impala’s predecessor and supplies only the Lac des Iles mine, about 130 kilometres northwest of Thunder Bay.

Impala sought land rights to ensure continued access for safe operation and maintenance of the line. The dispute involved a long-standing easement arrangement and land owned by North Star Forestry Ltd. when the proceeding began. During the review, North Star reported selling the land to Whisky Jack Forests LLC, which joined the case and adopted North Star’s submissions.

The board had rejected the expropriation application on May 21, 2026, in EB-2025-0286. Impala moved for review on June 10, alleging legal errors in how the original panel interpreted the legislation. The review panel proceeded directly to the merits rather than first hearing a separate threshold motion.

Construction permits were not the required statutory approval

Section 99 provides two routes to eligibility. One applies to a person who has leave under the relevant part of the Act or its predecessor. The other concerns a person intending to construct, expand or reinforce a line, or make an interconnection, who is exempt from the requirement to obtain leave.

Impala had no leave to construct under the current Act, which was enacted after its line was built. It argued that government permits obtained in the 1990s should count as approval under a predecessor regime.

The original panel disagreed, and the review panel found no error. The relevant predecessor legislation had authorized Ontario Hydro’s transmission projects. Impala’s Ministry of Natural Resources permits were not equivalent to that legislative approval process.

Impala said the narrow interpretation unfairly excluded older private transmission lines from powers available to other infrastructure owners. It relied on the board’s objectives of economic efficiency and growth and argued that the result gave landowners leverage in negotiations.

The review panel said those objectives did not let it create rights absent from the statute. Expropriation is an exceptional government power, to be interpreted cautiously in favour of affected owners. Leaving commercial parties to negotiate land rights or seek remedies in court was not an absurd result.

Maintenance did not become reinforcement

Impala also argued that replacing damaged or worn infrastructure and indefinitely maintaining the line’s integrity amounted to reinforcement.

The board rejected that argument. Reinforcement and maintenance were distinct concepts in the legislation and the Transmission System Code. The original panel had contrasted routine upkeep with a material upgrade, such as increasing a line’s capacity.

Treating ordinary maintenance as reinforcement would also imply that routine transmission-line maintenance required leave to construct, potentially flooding the board with applications. The review panel found no clear and material error in refusing that interpretation.

Impala therefore could not use the second statutory route either. The ruling concerned the work the company had actually proposed, not a blanket prohibition on private companies ever seeking expropriation authority.

No public-interest determination or new land grant

Because Impala was ineligible to apply, the board did not need to decide whether the proposed taking was in the public interest. Economic arguments about the mine could not replace that eligibility requirement.

The motion was denied. No easement was granted, and the decision did not resolve the parties’ private contractual land-rights dispute through expropriation.

The board directed a separate process for North Star’s cost claim and required Impala to pay the board’s incidental proceeding costs when invoiced. The October 8 decision did not quantify a costs award.