A and L Investments Ltd. et al. v. Ontario (Minister of Housing), (1997) 104 O.A.C. 92 (CA)

• Judge: Abella, Laskin and Goudge, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: October 16, 1997
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1997), 104 O.A.C. 92 (CA)

A and L Inv. Ltd. v. Ont. (1997), 104 O.A.C. 92 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1997] O.A.C. TBEd. OC.051

A and L Investments Ltd. et al. [names of other plaintiffs omitted] (respondents/appellants in cross-appeal) v. Her Majesty The Queen in Right of the Province of Ontario, as represented by the Minister of Housing and the Attorney General of Ontario (appellant/respondent in cross-appeal)

(C22988; C15913)

Highmark Residences Inc. (plaintiff/respondent) v. Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Ontario (defendant/appellant)

(C22987)

Indexed As: A and L Investments Ltd. et al. v. Ontario (Minister of Housing)

Ontario Court of Appeal

Abella, Laskin and Goudge, JJ.A.

October 16, 1997.

Summary:

The Residential Rent Regulation Amend­ment Act 1991 (the 1991 Act) voided rent increase orders obtained by landlords under predecessor legislation. The landlords brought two actions against the Ontario Crown for compensation. In both actions, the landlords asserted that the 1991 Act consti­tuted a statutory taking of their property and that, under common law principles of statu­tory interpretation, compensation was required. In one action, the landlords asserted that this legislation violated their rights under ss. 7 and 15(1) of the Charter. The Crown moved to strike the statement of claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Ontario Court (General Division) allowed the motion in part. The statutory taking claim was allowed to proceed. Only the Charter claim and certain claims found "too remote" were struck. The Crown appealed.

The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the appeal. The Crown, with leave, appealed. The plaintiffs in the Charter claim cross-appealed the dismissal of their claim.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal and dismissed the Charter plaintiffs' cross-appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 783

Liberty - Particular rights - Economic rights (incl. choice of work) - The Resi­dential Rent Regulation Amendment Act 1991 (the 1991 Act) voided rent increase orders obtained by landlords under prede­cessor legislation - The landlords sued the Ontario Crown for compensation - Some landlords asserted that the 1991 Act deprived them of a source of livelihood, their occupation and their savings, contrary to s. 7 of the Charter - The Ontario Court of Appeal struck their statement of claim as disclosing no cause of action because economic rights fell outside the s. 7 guar­antee - See paragraphs 34 and 35.

Expropriation - Topic 2

Right to compensation - General prin­ciples - Right to compensation at common law - [See Statutes - Topic 2261 ].

Expropriation - Topic 3

Right to compensation - General prin­ciples - Expropriation defined - [See Statutes - Topic 2261 ].

Practice - Topic 2230

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Failure to disclose a cause of action or defence - [See Civil Rights - Topic 783 and Statutes - Topic 2261 ].

Statutes - Topic 2261

Interpretation - Presumptions and rules in aid - Against abridgement of proprietary rights - The Residential Rent Regulation Amendment Act 1991 (the 1991 Act) voided rent increase orders obtained by landlords under predecessor legislation - The landlords sued the Ontario Crown for compensation - They asserted that the 1991 Act constituted a statutory taking of their property and that, under common law principles of statutory interpretation, com­pensation was required - The Ontario Court of Appeal struck their statement of claim as disclosing no cause of action - The court held that although the 1991 Act constituted a taking of the landlords' prop­erty, it did not constitute an expropriation because the Crown transferred no property to itself - Consequently, the presumption of the right to compensation in legislation taking property was inapplicable - See paragraphs 15 to 31.

Cases Noticed:

Manitoba Fisheries Ltd. v. Canada, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 101; 23 N.R. 159; [1978] 6 W.W.R. 496; 88 D.L.R.(3d) 462, consd. [para. 21].

Tener and Tener v. British Columbia, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 533; 59 N.R. 82; 17 D.L.R.(4th) 1, consd. [para. 23].

Steer Holdings Ltd. v. Manitoba et al., [1993] 2 W.W.R. 146; 83 Man.R.(2d) 171; 36 W.A.C. 171 (C.A.), consd. [para. 24].

Attorney General v. De Keyser's Royal Hotel Ltd., [1920] A.C. 508 (H.L.), consd. [para. 25].

Burmah Oil Co. (Burma Trading) v. Ad­vocate (Lord), [1965] A.C. 75 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 26].

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur gé­néral), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2; 58 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 25 C.P.R.(3d) 417, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Miles of Music Ltd. and Roch (1989), 31 O.A.C. 380; 74 O.R.(2d) 518 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

Biscotti, Costantini and Orton v. Ontario Securities Commission (1990), 40 O.A.C. 129; 74 O.R.(2d) 119 (Div. Ct.), revd. in part (1991), 45 O.A.C. 293; 1 O.R.(3d) 409 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

Counsel:

Richard E. Shibley, Robert A. Maxwell and Robert G. Doumani, for the respon­dents/appellants in cross-appeal;

John Morin, for the respondent, Highmark Residences Inc.;

Tom Marshall, Q.C., Peter Landmann and Robert Ratcliffe, for the appel­lant/respondent in cross-appeal.

This appeal and cross-appeal were heard on May 27 and 28, 1997, by Abella, Laskin and Goudge, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The decision of the Court of Appeal was released on October 16, 1997, by Goudge, J.A.