Antrim Truck Centre Ltd. v. Ontario (Minister of Transportation), (2013) 301 O.A.C. 281 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Fish, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis and Wagner, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: November 14, 2012
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2013), 301 O.A.C. 281 (SCC);2013 SCC 13;[2013] SCJ No 13 (QL);355 DLR (4th) 666;[2013] 1 SCR 594

Antrim Truck v. Ont. (2013), 301 O.A.C. 281 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2013] O.A.C. TBEd. MR.024

Antrim Truck Centre Ltd. (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Ontario, as represented by the Minister of Transportation (respondent) and Attorney General of British Columbia, City of Toronto and Metrolinx (interveners)

(34413; 2013 SCC 13; 2013 CSC 13)

Indexed As: Antrim Truck Centre Ltd. v. Ontario (Minister of Transportation)

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Fish, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis and Wagner, JJ.

March 7, 2013.

Summary:

A truck stop owner sued the Minister of Transportation for damages for injurious affection under the Expropriations Act as a result of the construction of Highway 417 which rerouted the Trans-Canada Highway and allegedly put the truck stop out of business. The Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) awarded $393,000 for injurious affection to the property. The Minister appealed, seeking dismissal of the truck stop owner's claim. The truck stop owner cross-appealed the quantum of damages.

The Ontario Divisional Court, in a decision reported 258 O.A.C. 1, dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal. The Minister appealed and the truck owner cross-appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 281 O.A.C. 150, allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the Divisional Court and the decision of the OMB and dismissed the truck stop owner's claim. The court also opined that the cross-appeal should be dismissed. The truck stop owner appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Court of Appeal and restored the order of the OMB.

Expropriation - Topic 185

Right to compensation - Injurious affection - Where none of claimant's land taken - A truck stop owner claimed damages for injurious affection (Expropriations Act) because of the rerouting of a highway - The Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) held that the statutory test for injurious affection was established, including the requirement that the claimant have a claim that was actionable at common law - The Minister of Transportation appealed - The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal - The Minister appealed again - The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the OMB's application of the law of private nuisance to the facts was unreasonable - The truck stop owner appealed - The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the decision of the OMB - The court disagreed with the Court of Appeal's approach to the balancing exercise to determine whether the interference was unreasonable - See paragraphs 52 to 56.

Torts - Topic 1002

Nuisance - General principles and definitions - Elements of - [See first and second Torts - Topic 1005 ].

Torts - Topic 1004

Nuisance - General principles and definitions - Actionable nuisance - What constitutes - [See first and second Torts - Topic 1005 ].

Torts - Topic 1005

Nuisance - General principles and definitions - Nuisance defined - The Supreme Court of Canada, per Cromwell, J., in the context of an expropriation case, discussed the elements of private nuisance - Cromwell, J., stated that "The Court of Appeal concluded that a nuisance consists of an interference with the claimant's use or enjoyment of land that is both substantial and unreasonable ... In my view, this conclusion is correct. The elements of a claim in private nuisance have often been expressed in terms of a two-part test of this nature: to support a claim in private nuisance the interference with the owner's use or enjoyment of land must be both substantial and unreasonable. A substantial interference with property is one that is non-trivial. Where this threshold is met, the inquiry proceeds to the reasonableness analysis, which is concerned with whether the non-trivial interference was also unreasonable in all of the circumstances" - The court held that while the two-part approach was open to criticism, the test should be retained - See paragraphs 18 to 24.

Torts - Topic 1005

Nuisance - General principles and definitions - Nuisance defined - The Supreme Court of Canada, in the context of an expropriation case, discussed the two-part test for what constituted a private nuisance (i.e., to support a claim in private nuisance the interference with the owner's use or enjoyment of land must be both substantial and unreasonable) - The court discussed what the threshold requirement of substantial harm required and how reasonableness was to be assessed in the context of interference caused by projects that furthered the public good - The court also determined that reasonableness was to be assessed in all cases where private nuisance was alleged regardless of the type of harm alleged (even in cases where the interference was physical or material) - See paragraphs 18 to 51.

Torts - Topic 1005

Nuisance - General principles and definitions - Nuisance defined - [See Expropriation - Topic 185 ].

Torts - Topic 1007

Nuisance - General principles and definitions - Private nuisance defined - [See first and second Torts - Topic 1005 ].

Torts - Topic 1010

Nuisance - General principles and definitions - Type of injury or damage required - [See first and second Torts - Topic 1005 ].

Torts - Topic 1250

Nuisance - Particular nuisances - General - Highways - Construction and maintenance - [See Expropriation - Topic 185 ].

Cases Noticed:

Barrette et al. v. St. Lawrence Cement Inc. et al., [2008] 3 S.C.R. 392; 382 N.R. 105; 2008 SCC 64, refd to. [para. 19].

St. Pierre v. Ontario (Minister of Transportation and Communications), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 906; 75 N.R. 291; 22 O.A.C. 63, refd to. [para. 19].

Heyes (Susan) Inc. v. Vancouver (City) et al. (2011), 301 B.C.A.C. 210; 510 W.A.C. 210; 329 D.L.R.(4th) 92; 2011 BCCA 77, refd to. [para. 19].

Gray's Velvet Ice Cream Ltd. v. City of Campbellton (1981), 36 N.B.R.(2d) 288; 94 A.P.R. 288; 127 D.L.R.(3d) 436, refd to. [para. 19].

Royal Anne Hotel Co. v. Ashcroft (Village) (1979), 95 D.L.R.(3d) 756 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Tock and Tock v. St. John's Metropolitan Area Board, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1181; 104 N.R. 241; 82 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 181; 257 A.P.R. 181, refd to. [para. 22].

Chilliwack (District) v. Jesperson's Brake & Muffler Ltd. et al. (1994), 40 B.C.A.C. 279; 65 W.A.C. 279; 88 B.C.L.R.(2d) 230 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Loiselle, [1962] S.C.R. 624, refd to. [para. 31].

Newfoundland (Minister of Works, Services and Transportation) v. Airport Realty Ltd. (2001), 205 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 95; 615 A.P.R. 95; 2001 NFCA 45, refd to. [para. 33].

Mandrake Management Consultants Ltd. v. Toronto Transit Commission (1993), 62 O.A.C. 202; 102 D.L.R.(4th) 123 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

Schenck v. Ontario; Rokeby v. Ontario (1981), 34 O.R.(2d) 595 (H.C.), affd. (1984), 49 O.R.(2d) 556 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

Andreae v. Selfridge & Co., [1938] 1 Ch. 1, refd to. [para. 41].

Wildtree Hotels Ltd. v. Harrow London Borough Council, [2001] 2 A.C. 1 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 42].

Allen v. Gulf Oil Refining Ltd., [1981] A.C. 1001, refd to. [para. 44].

St. Helen's Smelting Co. v. Tipping (1865), 11 H.L.C. 642; 11 E.R. 1483, refd to. [para. 47].

Walker v. McKinnon Industries Ltd., [1949] 4 D.L.R. 739 (Ont. H.C.), varied [1950] 3 D.L.R. 159 (Ont. C.A.), affd. [1951] 3 D.L.R. 577, refd to. [para. 47].

Smith v. Inco Ltd. (2011), 284 O.A.C. 13; 107 O.R. (3d) 321; 2011 ONCA 628, refd to. [para. 47].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Fleming, John G., The Law of Torts (10th Ed. 2011), ss. 21.80 [para. 19]; 21.110 [paras. 29, 30]; 21.120 [para. 29].

Klar, Lewis N., Tort Law (5th Ed. 2012), p. 759 [para. 19].

Linden, Allen M., and Feldthusen, Bruce, Canadian Tort Law (9th Ed. 2011), pp. 580 [para. 26]; 590, 591 [para. 29].

Linden, Allen M., Studies in Canadian Tort Law (1968), pp. 346, 347 [para. 26].

McLaren, J.P.S., Nuisance in Canada, in Allen M. Linden, ed., Studies in Canadian Tort Law (1968), pp. 346, 347 [para. 26].

Restatement of the Law, Second: Torts 2d, vol. 4 (1979), § 822 [para. 34].

Senzilet, Michael William, Compensation for Injurious Affection Where No Land Is Taken, Unpublished LL.M. Thesis, University of Ottawa (1987), p. 73 [para. 43].

Street, Harry, The Law of Torts (6th Ed. 1976), p. 219 [para. 19].

Street, Harry, The Law of Torts (13th Ed. 2012), pp. 439 [para. 29]; 443 [para. 19].

Todd, Eric C.E., The Law of Expropriation and Compensation in Canada (2nd Ed. 1992), pp. 331 to 333 [para. 4].

Counsel:

Shane Rayman and Greg Temelini, for the appellant;

Leonard F. Marsello, Malliha Wilson, Shona L. Compton and William R. MacLarkey, for the respondent;

Matthew Taylor and Jonathan Eades, for the intervener, the Attorney General of British Columbia;

Graham J. Rempe and Matthew G. Longo, for the intervener, the City of Toronto;

Kathryn I. Chalmers and Patrick G. Duffy, for the intervener, Metrolinx.

Solicitors of Record:

Rueter Scargall Bennett, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;

Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent;

Attorney General of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the intervener, the Attorney General of British Columbia;

City of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the City of Toronto;

Stikeman Elliott, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, Metrolinx.

This appeal was heard on November 14, 2012, before McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Fish, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis and Wagner, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the court was delivered in both official languages by Cromwell, J., on March 7, 2013.