Digest: Sherwood (Rural Municipality No. 159) v Delarue, 2018 SKQB 257

• Date: September 18, 2019

Reported as: 2018 SKQB 257

Docket Number: QB18244 , QBG 2283/17 JCR

Court: Court of Queen's Bench

Date: 2019-09-18

Judges:

• Leurer (ex officio)

Subjects:

• Expropriation � Valuation
• Municipal Law � Expropriation � Compensation
• Real Property � Expropriation

Digest: The plaintiff, a Rural Municipality (RM), deposited a plan pursuant to s. 4 of The Municipal Expropriation Act (MEA) to take 4.13 acres from the defendant. The expropriated land was necessary for the RM to construct a new road bridge over a creek on the land. The RM argued that the land should be valued at $3,300 per acre based on its agricultural use, whereas the defendant argued it was worth $56,000 because, based on its location, it could be developed into a rural residential acreage. Both parties obtained their figures with the assistance of expert appraisers. The land was located approximately three miles west of Regina city limits and it had access to gas, power, and community water. It had a creek running through it. The land was zoned as AG-1 (Agricultural District), which allowed a maximum of two residences per quarter section. The land would have to be rezoned to AG-2 to develop more than two residences on the quarter section. The land was in an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA), which could require additional information before the RM would allow development on the land. A 2014 official community plan (OCP) of the RM suggested it would support expanding residential development within the RM.
HELD: The court agreed that the defendant should be compensated on the basis that the highest and best use of the land was as a residential acreage. It was not only foreseeable, but almost certain that if the expropriated land was not taken by the RM, rezoning would have occurred. The expropriated land was the most desirable portion of the quarter section. The OCP was not binding on the RM: no development could be carried out contrary to a zoning bylaw. The court concluded that the future possible use of the land could be considered. The court indicated that the defendant could still create the same number of residential acreages from his land as before the expropriation. Also, moving the road provided some previously landlocked land with access to the road. The total frontage along the road did not decrease, but there was slightly more frontage. The formula outlined in s. 9 of the MEA requires the court to determine the value of the land and...