Patterson Law Expropriation Blog

Patterson Law routinely represents parties involved in all aspects of expropriation cases. Our expropriation practice is national in scope and we represent all classes of parties to expropriations.

By Expropriation Group on 3/14/2017 8:00 AM
In Lynch v St. John's (City), 2016 NLCA 35, the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal heard an appeal of a decision denying permission to proceed with a ten-lot residential development.  The refusal by the city had been upheld by the Trial Division of the court.  The plaintiffs appealed the court's decision, arguing that the denial effectively amounted to expropriation without compensation...
By Expropriation Group on 4/8/2015 9:19 AM

In Dartmouth Crossing Limited (Re), 2015 NSUARB 48, the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board considered whether information provided by a landowner to an expropriating authority for an injurious affection claim was sufficient meet the requirements for “particulars” during the one year limitation period under the Expropriation Act...

By Expropriation Group on 12/18/2014 8:31 AM

In May, we posted a blog entry on Vincorp Financial Ltd v The Corporation of the County of Oxford, 2014 ONSC 2580, a decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice concerning the ability of a municipality to expropriation lands to sell to another business (Toyota) to build a factory.  The Ontario Court of Appeal just released its decision in Vincorp Financial Ltd v Oxford (County), 2014 ONCA 876...

By Expropriation Group on 10/13/2014 10:24 AM

Recently, in Tri-Lag Corporation Limited v York Region District School Board, 2014 ONSC 4600, a previous award of compensation in expropriation was taken into account by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in denying a plaintiff leave to appeal a decision in which the motions judge ordered the plaintiff to provide security for costs...

By Expropriation Group on 5/28/2014 9:46 AM

In Vincorp Financial Ltd v The Corporation of the County of Oxford, 2014 ONSC 2580, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice released an interesting decision concerning the ability of a municipality to expropriate lands to sell to another business for the building of a factory.  In doing so, the court looked at the idea of a “public purpose” in expropriation...

By Expropriation Group on 4/1/2014 8:00 AM

In this recent decision by the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, the Plaintiffs sought compensation from the Defendant in an action brought by Statement of Claim under s. 29(3) of the Alberta Expropriation Act after a portion of their land was expropriated by the Defendant. Later, the Plaintiffs amended the Statement of Claim to include various tort claims against the Defendant. The Defendant applied at a case management conference to strike those portions of the amended Statement of Claim which claimed the expropriation was void or voidable and to sever the remaining tort claims from those made under the Act...

By Expropriation Group on 12/9/2013 11:39 AM
This decision of the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board follows from Visser (Re), 2013 NSUARB 180, in which the UARB awarded damages for injurious affection caused by highway construction undertaken by the Province.  In this second decision, the Board heard the issue of whether death relieves the Crown of its obligation to compensate an owner under the Expropriation Act for injurious affection when no lands were expropriated...
By Expropriation Group on 10/17/2013 8:48 AM
In this recent Alberta Court of Appeal decision, the court heard an appeal from the Alberta Land Compensation Board in which the Board had found that the parties had agreed to a binding settlement agreement...
By Expropriation Group on 6/11/2013 8:08 AM

In this case of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador (Carter et al v Pasadena (Town), [2000] 188 NFLD & PEIR 222, 19 admin LR (3d) 293), the applicants were land owners who were challenging the validity of a 1996 expropriation of their land by the Town of Pasadena.  The applicants alleged that the town failed to comply with the notice provisions of the Expropriation Act.  This particular decision was the result of a preliminary motion brought by the respondents to determine whether the originating application was time barred by the six-month limitation period for an application for certiorari... 

By Expropriation Group on 3/26/2013 10:26 AM

On March 7, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Antrim Truck Centre Ltd v Ontario (Transportation), 2013 SCC 13, allowing the appeal and overturning the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal.  Our case summary of the Ontario Court of Appeal decision was posted on October 15, 2012.  With the blog-medium in mind, this case summary will be broken into two parts in order to keep the articles to a reasonable length...

By Expropriation Group on 3/7/2013 2:25 PM

On October 15, 2012, we posted a summary of Antrim Truck Centre Limited v Ontario (Transportation), 2011 ONCA 419 noting that at that time, the case was under appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada...

By pipblogger on 12/3/2012 3:44 PM
In a decision that has been widely discussed among lawyers, the British Columbia Court of Appeal recently held in Poole v. Lombard General Insurance Company of Canada that a law firm’s professional insurance policy did not cover a case dating back to 2001 and involving an articling student who sustained a mild brain injury when a lawyer in her law firm fell on her while intoxicated at a bar.
By Expropriation Group on 8/28/2012 12:49 PM
In Smith v Alliance Pipeline Limited, 2011 SCC 7, the Supreme Court of Canada heard an appeal from the Federal Court of Appeal under the National Energy Board Act (“NEBA”).  In 1998, Alliance Pipeline Limited obtained approval from the National Energy Board to build a pipeline that would cross the farm land of Mr. Smith.  The pipeline was completed in 1999, but once complete, Alliance failed to perform the agreed-upon remedial work on the easement.  Mr. Smith performed the remediation work himself, but Alliance then refused to fully compensate him for the work.  Mr. Smith therefore turned to statutorily-mandated arbitration for what was meant to be an expeditious resolution of the dispute.

The result was anything but expeditious:  two Arbitration Committee Hearings; one Court of Queen’s Bench action; one judicial review; one appellant review proceeding; and an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The proceedings...
By Expropriation Group on 8/3/2012 8:04 AM
On July 27, 2012 the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board dismissed a claim by an Annapolis Valley Resident for compensation for lost business arising from a highway expropriation.  Mrs. Inglis operated a roadside fruit stand next to Highway 201.  As part of a program to extend neighbouring Highway 101, the Province expropriated some of the lands belonging to Mrs. Inglis and paid her for that land.  The Board noted that the construction and subsequent operation of Highway 101 created no impediment to the access of Mrs. Inglis’s fruit stand.  However, when Highway 101 came into operation, the amount of traffic along Highway 201 diminished and revenue for the fruit stand dropped.  Ultimately, the fruit stand closed.  Mrs. Inglis claimed for her lost business, with an expert calculating her losses at $477,037, plus other expenses. The decision turned on the interpretation of “injurious affection” in the Nova Scotia Expropriation Act and the application of what has been termed the “actionable rule”.  This rule is simply that the damage claimed must be something which would be actionable under the common law.  It is derived both from caselaw and the language of the Expropriation Act.  The Board found that the claim by Mrs. Inglis for injurious affection could only succeed if it could be shown that the Province would be liable at common law for the type of damage which she claimed.  ...