TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Privy Council affirms compensation for expropriated land, including fishing rights and interest.</h1> <h3>Inglewood Pulp and Paper Co. Ltd. Versus New Brunswick Electric Power Commission</h3> Inglewood Pulp and Paper Co. Ltd. Versus New Brunswick Electric Power Commission - TMI Issues:- Appeal against the order of the Court of Appeal- Cross-appeal against the order of the Court of Appeal- Sufficiency of compensation awarded for expropriated land- Valuation of special advantages and hunting/shooting rights- Amount awarded for severance and fishing rights- Allowance of interest on the compensation amountAnalysis:The judgment involves an appeal from the Court of Appeal's order affirming an award made by an arbitrator under the New Brunswick Electric Power Act, 1920. The appellants sought compensation for lands expropriated by the respondents for their statutory undertaking. The respondents, a department of the Province, were given extensive powers of expropriation for generating electrical energy. The Act outlined procedures for compensation, including assessment by a sworn surveyor or civil engineer. The arbitrator, after a lengthy process, awarded $42,500, which was later varied by the Court of Appeal to $49,490, including fishing rights and interest.The main issues raised in the appeal were the sufficiency of compensation, valuation of special advantages, hunting/shooting rights, and severance damages. The arbitrator's decision not to award compensation for special advantages or hunting/shooting rights was upheld by the Court of Appeal due to lack of evidence. The Court also found no error in the valuation of severance damages, as it was within the arbitrator's discretion. The Court upheld the award for fishing rights, considering evidence of their value.In the cross-appeal, the respondents challenged the inclusion of fishing rights compensation and the allowance of interest on the awarded sum. The Court upheld the compensation for fishing rights, deeming it supported by evidence. Regarding interest, the Court applied the principle of requiring the payment of interest on the purchase price from the date of possession, as established in previous cases under similar statutes. The respondents' expropriation date was accepted as the starting point for interest calculation.Ultimately, the Privy Council dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, upholding the Court of Appeal's decision. The judgment emphasized the importance of evidence in determining compensation and affirmed the application of interest in expropriation cases to ensure fair treatment of property owners.
TaxTMI 