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.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Table of Cases
...[2006] O.J. No. 70 (C.A.)...................... 373 A & L Investments Ltd. v. Ontario (1997), 36 O.R. (3d) 127, 152 D.L.R. (4th) 692, 104 O.A.C. 92 (C.A.) ................................................ 459 A.C. v. Manitoba (Director of Child and Family Services), 2009 SCC 30 ......... 459......
-
Table of Cases
...136 A & L Investments Ltd. v. Ontario (1997), 36 O.R. (3d) 127, 152 D.L.R. (4th) 692, 104 O.A.C. 92 (C.A.) ................................................. 461 A.C. v. Manitoba (Director of Child and Family Services), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 181, 2009 SCC 30 .............................................
-
R. v. D.B. et al., [2005] O.T.C. 26 (SC)
...46 O.R.(3d) 481; 142 C.C.C.(3d) 225 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40]. A and L Investments Ltd. et al. v. Ontario (Minister of Housing) (1997), 104 O.A.C. 92; 36 O.R.(3d) 127; 152 D.L.R.(4th) 692 (C.A.), folld. [para. Siemens et al. v. Manitoba (Attorney General) et al., [2003] 1 S.C.R. 6; 299 N.......
-
d’Abadie v Her Majesty the Queen, 2018 ABQB 298
...Irwin Toy Ltd v Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] 1 SCR 927, 58 DLR (4th) 577; A and L Investments Ltd v Ontario (1997), 152 DLR (4th) 692, 104 OAC 92 (Ont CA), leave to appeal to SCC refused, 26395; 26396 (15 December 1997); Bassett v Canada (Government) (1987), 35 DLR (4th) 537, 53 Sask R......
-
R. v. D.B. et al., [2005] O.T.C. 26 (SC)
...46 O.R.(3d) 481; 142 C.C.C.(3d) 225 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40]. A and L Investments Ltd. et al. v. Ontario (Minister of Housing) (1997), 104 O.A.C. 92; 36 O.R.(3d) 127; 152 D.L.R.(4th) 692 (C.A.), folld. [para. Siemens et al. v. Manitoba (Attorney General) et al., [2003] 1 S.C.R. 6; 299 N.......
-
d’Abadie v Her Majesty the Queen, 2018 ABQB 298
...Irwin Toy Ltd v Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] 1 SCR 927, 58 DLR (4th) 577; A and L Investments Ltd v Ontario (1997), 152 DLR (4th) 692, 104 OAC 92 (Ont CA), leave to appeal to SCC refused, 26395; 26396 (15 December 1997); Bassett v Canada (Government) (1987), 35 DLR (4th) 537, 53 Sask R......
-
Ontario Federation of Anglers & Hunters et al. v. Ontario (Minister of Natural Resources) et al., (2002) 158 O.A.C. 255 (CA)
...in Relation to Chemicals, [1943] 1 S.C.R. 1, consd. [para. 41]. A and L Investments Ltd. et al. v. Ontario (Minister of Housing) (1997), 104 O.A.C. 92; 36 O.R.(3d) 127 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1998), 227 N.R. 281; 111 O.A.C. 399 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 49]. Cosyns v. Canada (Attor......
-
Alberta (Minister of Justice and Attorney General) v. Echert et al., (2013) 563 A.R. 74 (QB)
...Alberta (1983), 45 A.R. 36; 148 D.L.R.(3d) 539 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44]. A and L Investments Ltd. v. Ontario (Minister of Housing) (1997), 104 O.A.C. 92; 152 D.L.R.(4th) 692; 36 O.R.(3d) 127 (C.A.), leave to appeal dismissed (1998), 227 N.R. 281; 111 O.A.C. 399 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. ......
-
Table of Cases
...[2006] O.J. No. 70 (C.A.)...................... 373 A & L Investments Ltd. v. Ontario (1997), 36 O.R. (3d) 127, 152 D.L.R. (4th) 692, 104 O.A.C. 92 (C.A.) ................................................ 459 A.C. v. Manitoba (Director of Child and Family Services), 2009 SCC 30 ......... 459......
-
Table of Cases
...136 A & L Investments Ltd. v. Ontario (1997), 36 O.R. (3d) 127, 152 D.L.R. (4th) 692, 104 O.A.C. 92 (C.A.) ................................................. 461 A.C. v. Manitoba (Director of Child and Family Services), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 181, 2009 SCC 30 .............................................