Expropriation compensation principles: evidence-based valuation, compensable fishing rights, and interest from possession as part of full indemnity.

In expropriation compensation, factual findings supported by evidence were not disturbed where the arbitrator found no special value as a water-power site, no proved hunting and shooting value, and no basis to reject the severance damage assessment. Fishing rights over the expropriated area were compensable because the evidence showed real value in those rights, so the allowance was upheld. Interest on compensation was also payable from the date possession was taken, because the statute did not exclude that incident of full indemnity and the right to interest replaced the owner's right to retain possession.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the award of compensation for the expropriated lands should be disturbed on the footing that special value existed as a water-power site, that hunting and shooting rights had compensable value, and that the allowance for severance damage was inadequate; (ii) whether compensation was payable for fishing rights over the expropriated area; and (iii) whether interest was payable on the compensation from the date possession was taken.

Issue (i): whether the award of compensation for the expropriated lands should be disturbed on the footing that special value existed as a water-power site, that hunting and shooting rights had compensable value, and that the allowance for severance damage was inadequate.

Analysis: The arbitrator correctly applied the law governing compensation under the expropriating statute and found, as a matter of fact, that no special value could be placed on the lands as a water-power site. That finding was supported by evidence and was not open to interference. The claim for hunting and shooting value was also unsupported by material evidence. As to severance, the amount of damage was primarily for the arbitrator to assess, and there was no basis to hold that he was bound to accept the higher estimate given by the surveyor.

Conclusion: The compensation award was not to be interfered with on these grounds, and the contention failed.

Issue (ii): whether compensation was payable for fishing rights over the expropriated area.

Analysis: There was abundant evidence that the fishing for trout and landlocked salmon had real value, and the appellate court was justified in recognising that loss as compensable. The allowance made for fishing rights was therefore supported by the evidence.

Conclusion: Compensation for fishing rights was rightly allowed.

Issue (iii): whether interest was payable on the compensation from the date possession was taken.

Analysis: The principle that a purchaser or expropriating authority taking possession should pay interest on the compensation from the date of possession was treated as applicable by analogy. The statute contained nothing to show an intention to deprive the owner of that incident of compensation, and the right to interest was regarded as taking the place of the right to retain possession.

Conclusion: Interest was payable from the date possession was taken.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, while the cross-appeal also failed in substance, and the compensation order, including the allowance for fishing rights and interest, stood.

Ratio Decidendi: In expropriation, factual findings on compensation will not be disturbed where supported by evidence, and unless the statute clearly excludes it, interest on compensation follows the taking of possession as an incident of full indemnity.

---