Batten v. Newfoundland Light & Power Co., (1978) 20 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 314 (NFSC)

• Judge: Goodridge, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador (Canada)
• Case Date: June 20, 1978
• Jurisdiction: Newfoundland and Labrador
• Citations: (1978), 20 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 314 (NFSC)

Batten v. Nfld. Power (1978), 20 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 314 (NFSC);

    53 A.P.R. 314

MLB headnote and full text

Batten v. Nfld. Light & Power Co.

Indexed As: Batten v. Newfoundland Light & Power Co.

Newfoundland Supreme Court

Goodridge, J.

June 20, 1978.

Summary:

This case arose out of the expropriation of a portion of a 4.5 acre undeveloped lot for a power line easement, which crossed a corner of the property for a total distance of 140 ft. The owner claimed compensation for loss of the land and injurious affection to the remainder, which he claimed he intended to develop for subdivision purposes; although there were no definite plans for a subdivision. The Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities awarded the owner $3,000.00 compensation. The expropriating authority appealed.

The Newfoundland Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the compensation award by the Board, because it was not supported by the evidence. The Supreme Court remitted the matter to the Board for a re-determination of compensation.

Evidence - Topic 9

Question of law - What constitutes - The Newfoundland Supreme Court held that a fact finding which is unsupported by evidence is a question of law - See paragraph 53.

Expropriation - Topic 15

Right to compensation - General principles - Interpretation of expropriation statutes - The Newfoundland Supreme Court held that any ambiguity in the language of an expropriation statute should be resolved in favour of the person whose interest has been expropriated - See paragraph 62.

Expropriation - Topic 180

Right to compensation - Injurious affection - Resulting from easement - The Newfoundland Supreme Court held that compensation for injurious affection to land caused by an easement could be awarded under s. 3(f) of the Public Utilities (Acquisition of Lands) Act, R.S.N. 1970, c. 323 - See paragraphs 55 to 69.

Expropriation - Topic 1010

Measure of compensation - Valuation of land - Value to owner - The Newfoundland Supreme Court set out the general principles of determining the value of land to the owner - See paragraphs 70 to 80.

Expropriation - Topic 1218

Measure of compensation - Injurious affection - Evidence and proof - The Newfoundland Supreme Court held that the onus of proving the value of injurious affection rests upon him who asserts the value and that proof must be as strict as circumstances permit in the way that special damages must be proved - See paragraphs 81 to 88.

Expropriation - Topic 1300

Measure of compensation - Valuation of land - Elements of compensation - General - The Newfoundland Supreme Court set out many of the elements of determining compensation for the expropriation of land suitable for subdivision purposes - See paragraphs 102 to 105.

Expropriation - Topic 2203

Practice - Appeals - Variation of award on appeal - The Newfoundland Supreme Court set out the principles governing the review of a compensation award on appeal - See paragraphs 38 to 54.

Expropriation - Topic 2207

Practice - Appeals - Scope of review by appeal court - Public Utilities (Acquisition of Lands) Act, R.S.N. 1970, c. 323, s. 6(3), (5) - The Newfoundland Supreme Court held that an appeal from a compensation award by the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities was an ordinary appeal and not a rehearing - See paragraph 35 to 37.

Expropriation - Topic 2253

Practice and procedure - Evidence - Taking a view by tribunal - The Newfoundland Supreme Court held that a tribunal assessing compensation for expropriated land may take a view of the land provided that the parties are notified and given an opportunity to be present at the time of the inspection - See paragraphs 117 to 120.

Cases Noticed:

Quilter v. Mapleson (1882), 9 Q.B.D. 672, appld. [para. 37].

LeMoine v. City of Montreal (1894), 23 S.C.R. 390, consd. [para. 39].

Re B.C. Electric Railway Company Limited and Brown, [1948] 1 W.W.R. 558, appld. [para. 40].

LaCoste v. Cedar Rapids Manufacturing and Power Company, [1928] 2 D.L.R. 1, appld. [para. 41].

Minister of Public Works v. Morris Estate (1973), 4 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 48, appld. [para. 43].

Stanley and Heale v. The City of St. John's (1971), 1 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 519, appld. [para. 44].

Coghlan v. Cumberland, [1898] 1 Ch. 704, appld. [para. 47].

Montgomery and Co. Limited v. James, [1904] A.C. 73, appld. [para. 49].

Sisters of Charity of Rockingham v. The King, [1922] 2 A.C. 315, appld. [para. 56].

R. (Moore) v. Abbott, [1897] 2 I.R. 362, folld. [para. 65].

Re Ned's Point Battery, [1903] 2 I.R. 192, folld. [para. 65].

Blundell v. R., [1905] 1 K.B. 516, folld. [para. 65].

Minister of Highways for British Columbia v. British Pacific Properties Ltd. et al. (1960), 23 D.L.R.(2d) 305, folld. [para. 68].

Maritime Electric Company Limited v. Thorne and Thorne (1978), 14 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 364; 33 A.P.R. 364, consd. [para. 66].

R. v. Trudel, [1914] S.C.R. 501, appld. [para. 72].

Re Lucas and Chesterfield Gas and Water Board, [1909] 1 K.B. 16, appld. [para. 72].

Cedar Rapids Manufacturing and Power Company v. LaCoste, [1914] A.C. 569, appld. [para. 73].

Re B.C. Electrical Railway Company Limited and Brown, [1948] 1 W.W.R. 558, appld. [para. 74].

Vyricherla v. Revenue Division Officer, [1939] A.C. 302, appld. [para. 79].

R. v. Elgin Realty Co. Ltd., [1943] 1 D.L.R. 497, appld. [para. 80].

Statutes Noticed:

Judicature Act, R.S.N. 1970, c. 187, sect. 254 [para. 36]; sect. 263(1) [para. 35].

Public Utilities (Acquisition of Lands) Act, R.S.N. 1970, c. 323, sect. 3 [paras. 29, 30]; sect. 6(3), sect. 6(5) [para. 31].

Rules of Court (Nfld.), Order 54, rule 1 [para. 36].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Black's Law Dictionary [para. 60].

Counsel:

Douglas Black, for the appellant;

Denis Barry, for the respondent;

Christine Fagan, for the Board.

This case was heard on May 5, 1978, before GOODRIDGE, J., of the Newfoundland Supreme Court.

On June 20, 1978, GOODRIDGE, J., delivered the following judgment: