Hang on, since when are we only comparing to other Canadian Olympics? And if we're doing that, we should only compare summer Games to summer Games and so on, since it's widely acknowledged that the two are different. E.g. the winter Games are smaller and largely take place outside of cities because that's where the mountains are, etc.
Why shouldn't we? Scale is irrelevant when you make bold claims about neighbourhood destruction. Do you seriously expect one to compare us to say China or Brazil and not be challenged on that claim? The village in the case of Vancouver is smack in the middle of the city even, so are a significant numbers of venues. It created a new neighbourhood and didn't destroy any.
Anyway, the book Five Ring Circus gets into what happened with land clearances in the Vancouver games. There was an issue with habitat destruction for an eagle species due to Olympic construction, for one example.
It was for a highway expansion (one that would have happened regardless), not neighbourhood destruction. Stop the moving goalposts please.
Anyway 2, as I've said repeatedly, the host city contract supersedes the laws that normally cover the jurisdiction. That's what is meant by that term I keep using "state of exception". So it's kind of irrelevant what would normally happen in Canada if you wanted to raze a neighbourhood, just like it was irrelevant in London. That's why London is a scary example - it has similar property laws to ours (we basically got ours from the UK to begin with) and yet they didn't stop people from losing their homes and businesses.
There is nothing scary - the government always have the powers of expropriation. Let's not pretend that we couldn't have expropriated and razed if the need arise in other contexts. The question is whether such a blunt instrument will be used in the Olympic context in Canada - and so far the answer is categorically no, and you haven't put forth any convincing examples to the contrary other than playing upon fears.