Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Vancouver (City)

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish and Abella, JJ.
• Citation: (2006), 345 N.R. 140 (SCC),2006 SCC 5,221 BCAC 1,[2006] SCJ No 5 (QL),[2006] 1 SCR 227,345 NR 140,262 DLR (4th) 454
• Date: 23 February 2006

CPR v. Vancouver (2006), 345 N.R. 140 (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: [2006] N.R. TBEd. FE.049

Canadian Pacific Railway Company (appellant) v. City of Vancouver (respondent) and British Columbia Chamber of Commerce, British Columbia Real Estate Association, Business Council of British Columbia, Canadian Home Builders' Association of British Columbia, Council of Tourism Associations of British Columbia, Mining Association of British Columbia, New Car Dealers Association of British Columbia, Retail Council of Canada, Urban Development Institute (Pacific Region) and Urban Development Institute of Canada (intervenors)

(30374; 2006 SCC 5; 2006 CSC 5)

Indexed As: Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Vancouver (City)

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish and Abella, JJ.

February 23, 2006.

Summary:

Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) owned the Arbutus Corridor and had recently aban­doned its use as a rail line. CPR challenged, on substantive and procedural grounds, the validity of the City of Vancouver's Arbutus Corridor Official Development Plan Bylaw, which purported to preserve the corridor for public use. The bylaw froze redevelopment potential and confined CPR to uneconomic uses, which CPR argued was unfair and unreasonable.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a judgment reported [2002] B.C.T.C. 1507, set aside the bylaw as ultra vires the city. The court did not rule on the procedural grounds. The city appealed. CPR cross-appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported (2004), 196 B.C.A.C. 49; 322 W.A.C. 49, allowed the appeal and dismissed the cross-appeal. The bylaw was intra vires the city's power to plan for future land development.The city had no obligation to compensate CPR and the bylaw suffered from no procedural irregularities that would render it invalid. The city appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 1503

Property - General principles - Deprivation of property - Compensation - CPR owned the Arbutus Corridor, an abandoned rail line of some 45 acres - The City of Van­couver's Arbutus Corridor Official Devel­opment Plan Bylaw effectively froze the redevelopment potential of the land and restricted CPR to uneconomic uses - CPR argued that the city "acquired" the land and should pay compensation - The Supreme Court of Canada held that there was no de facto taking requiring compensation at common law, because the city did not acquire a beneficial interest in the land and all reasonable uses were not removed - In any event, The Vancouver Charter clearly exempted the city from paying compensa­tion - Section 569, in providing that any exercise of powers by city council pursuant to Part XXVII could not be deemed a taking, was conclusive against the CPR's contention - The city was under no obliga­tion to compensate the CPR - See para­graphs 11 to 37.

Expropriation - Topic 3

Right to compensation - General principles - Expropriation defined - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1503 ].

Municipal Law - Topic 3330

Bylaws - Notice of intention to consider - Form and content - At issue was the valid­ity of the City of Vancouver's Arbutus Cor­ridor Official Development Plan By­law, which affected land owned by the CPR - The city's policy was to hold a pub­lic hearing before enactment of a bylaw adopting an official development plan - The CPR alleged that the bylaw was in­valid, because the city gave inadequate notice of the hearing - It alleged that the notice failed to specifically state that the bylaw would designate private land as a "pub­lic thoroughfare" - Also, it alleged that since the notice stated that no decision would be made about specific transit uses, city council could not exempt elevated rail uses from the bylaw - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that there was no de­nial of fairness - The notice was suffi­cient - The bylaw was not invalid on pro­cedural grounds - See paragraphs 38 to 46.

Municipal Law - Topic 3404

Bylaws - Enactment - Public hearing - Duty of fairness - Disclosure of documents - At issue was the validity of the City of Vancouver's Arbutus Corridor Official De­velopment Plan Bylaw, which affected land owned by the CPR - The city's policy was to hold a public hearing before enact­ment of a bylaw adopting an official devel­op­ment plan - The CPR alleged that the by­law was invalid, because the city refused to disclose documents demanded by the CPR prior to the public hearing - The Su­preme Court of Canada affirmed that there was sufficient disclosure to meet the city's duty of fairness - CPR was given adequate disclosure to allow it meaningful participa­tion in the public hearing process - See para­graphs 54 to 62.

Municipal Law - Topic 3464

Bylaws - Amendment or variation - How made - At issue was the validity of the City of Vancouver's Arbutus Corridor Of­fi­cial Development Plan Bylaw, which af­fected land owned by the CPR - The city's policy was to hold a public hearing before enactment of a bylaw adopting an official development plan - The CPR alleged that the bylaw was invalid, because the city, at the closed meeting following the public hear­ing, amended the bylaw's wording - The British Columbia Court of Appeal re­jected the argument - City coun­cil dealt with the matter in accordance with s. 566(5) of the Vancouver Charter, which pro­vided that after the public hearing, council might alter the bylaw "to give effect to such representations made at the hearing" as council deemed fit - The Su­preme Court of Canada affirmed the deci­sion - See paragraphs 47 to 53.

Municipal Law - Topic 3842

Bylaws - Quashing bylaws - Grounds for ju­dicial interference - Ultra vires - The CPR owned the Arbutus Corridor, a rail line consisting of some 45 acres - At issue was the validity of the City of Vancouver's Arbutus Corridor Official Development Plan Bylaw - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that a Chambers judge erred in her interpretation of the Van­couver Charter and in concluding that city council, in enacting the bylaw, exceeded its powers under s. 562 of the Charter - If effect was given to the plain and literal meaning of ss. 561 to 563 and 569(1), city council acted within its powers - Nor did s. 564 support the conclusion that the by­law was invalid - The Supreme Court of Can­ada affirmed that the bylaw was intra vires the city's power to plan for future land development - See paragraphs 11 to 26.

Cases Noticed:

Mariner Real Estate Ltd. v. Nova Scotia (1999), 178 N.S.R.(2d) 294; 549 A.P.R. 294; 177 D.L.R.(4th) 696 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

Manitoba Fisheries v. Canada, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 101; 23 N.R. 159, refd to. [para. 30].

Tener and Tener v. British Columbia, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 533; 59 N.R. 82, refd to. [para. 30].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 38].

Pitt Polder Preservation Society v. Pitt Meadows (District) (2000), 139 B.C.A.C. 247; 227 W.A.C. 247; 12 M.P.L.R.(3d) 1; 2000 BCCA 415, refd to. [para. 55].

Statutes Noticed:

Expropriation Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 125, sect. 1, sect. 2(1) [Appendix B].

Vancouver Charter, S.B.C. 1953, c. 55, sect. 2, sect. 289(1), sect. 317(1)(a), sect. 559, sect. 561, sect. 562(1), sect. 563, sect. 564(1), sect. 566(1), sect. 569(1) [Appendix A].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Brown, Donald J.M., and Evans, John M., Ju­dicial Review of Administrative Action in Canada (1998) (2005 Looseleaf Ed.), p. 9-34, § 9:5110 [para. 46].

Counsel:

Peter Kenward, for the appellant;

George K. Macintosh, Q.C., and Susan B. Horne, for the respondent;

Peter G. Voith, Q.C., and Gib van Ert, for the intervenors (written sub­missions only).

Solicitors of Record:

McCarthy Tétrault, Vancouver, B.C., for the appellant;

Farris, Vaughan, Wills & Murphy, Van­couver, B.C., for the respondent;

Hunter Voith, Vancouver, B.C., for the intervenors.

This appeal was heard on November 9, 2005, before McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish and Abella, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On February 23, 2006, McLachlin, C.J.C., delivered the following judgment in both official languages for the Supreme Court of Canada.