Manitoba v. Christie, MacKay & Co., (1994) 92 Man.R.(2d) 167 (CA)

• Judge: Scott, C.J.M., Philp and Helper, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
• Case Date: February 01, 1994
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (1994), 92 Man.R.(2d) 167 (CA)

Man. v. Christie, MacKay & Co. (1994), 92 Man.R.(2d) 167 (CA);

    61 W.A.C. 167

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty The Queen in Right of the Province of Manitoba (applicant/respondent) v. Christie, MacKay and Company (respondent/appellant)

(Suit No. AI 93-30-01377)

Indexed As: Manitoba v. Christie, MacKay & Co.

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Scott, C.J.M., Philp and Helper, JJ.A.

February 1, 1994.

Summary:

Manitoba expropriated the office building in which a law firm was a tenant. The law firm's lease was about to expire, but it had a right to renew for a further five years at a rent to be agreed. It relocated to a place with higher rent. The Land Value Appraisal Commission awarded compensation in the amount of the rent differential for five years. Manitoba appealed.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported 87 Man.R.(2d) 285, allowed the appeal, holding that the rent differential was not compensable. The law firm appealed.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Expropriation - Topic 117

Right to compensation - Compensable interests - Leasehold interests - Right of renewal - Manitoba expropriated the office building in which a law firm was a tenant - Its lease was about to expire, but it had a right to renew for a further five years at a rent to be agreed - It relocated to a place with a higher rent - The law firm was awarded compensation in the amount of the rent differential for five years - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench held that the rent differential was not compensable - The Manitoba Court of Appeal affirmed the decision.

Expropriation - Topic 1155.1

Measure of compensation - Special inter­ests - Leaseholds - Right of renewal - [See Expropriation - Topic 117 ].

Expropriation - Topic 6041

Compensation boards - Jurisdiction - General - Manitoba expropriated the office building in which a law firm was a tenant - Its lease was about to expire, but it had the right to renew for a further five years at a rent to be agreed - It relocated at a higher rent - The Land Value Appraisal Commission awarded compensation, but deferred the issue of the cost of rent dif­ferential for the five year renewal period - The hearing resumed before a differently constituted panel - The Manitoba Court of Appeal was satisfied that the evidence at the first hearing was accepted as part of the record by the second panel and that, accordingly, the second panel had jurisdic­tion - See paragraphs 2 to 10.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Gauthier, [1968] 1 Ex. C.R. 75, refd to. [para. 19].

Bertrand et al. v. Sudbury (City) (1972), 3 L.C.R. 286 (Ont. Land Comp. Bd.), refd to. [para. 22].

Famous Players Ltd. et al. v. Sudbury (City) (1978), 15 L.C.R. 49, refd to. [para. 24].

Manitoba v. Christie, MacKay and Co., [1993] 3 W.W.R. 396; 83 Man.R.(2d) 197; 36 W.A.C. 197 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Statutes Noticed:

Expropriation Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. E-190; C.C.S.M., c. E-190, sect. 26(1)(a), sect. 26(1)(b) [para. 16]; sect. 26(1)(c) [paras. 16, 17]; sect. 26(1)(d) [paras. 5, 16, 17]; sect. 28(3) [para. 20].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Todd, Eric C.E., The Law of Expropriation and Compensation in Canada (2nd Ed. 1992), pp. 274 [para. 18]; 415 [para. 21].

Counsel:

S. Green, Q.C., for the appellant;

W.G. McFetridge, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on January 13, 1994, before Scott, C.J.M., Philp and Helper, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal.

The following decision was delivered for the Court of Appeal by Helper, J.A., on February 1, 1994.