Manitoba v. Roeland Farms Ltd., (1995) 107 Man.R.(2d) 35 (CA)

• Judge: Scott, C.J.M., Philp and Lyon, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
• Case Date: May 16, 1995
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (1995), 107 Man.R.(2d) 35 (CA)

Man. v. Roeland Farms Ltd. (1995), 107 Man.R.(2d) 35 (CA);

    109 W.A.C. 35

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty The Queen in right of the Province of Manitoba (authority/appellant) v. Roeland Farms Ltd. (owner/respondent)

(Suit No. AI 94-30-02038)

Indexed As: Manitoba v. Roeland Farms Ltd.

Manitoba Court of Appeal

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

October 10, 1995.

Summary:

The Province expropriated a piece of arable farm land for improvement of a high­way. The Land Value Appraisal Commis­sion, after public hearings, determined the compensation payable, including an award for injurious affection. The Province appealed, seeking to set aside the award for injurious affection.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part.

Expropriation - Topic 3102

Compensation awards - Particular awards - Injurious affection - Severance - The Province expropriated a piece of arable land for improvement of a highway - The Land Value Appraisal Commission, after public hearings, determined the compensa­tion payable to the owner, including an award for injurious affection - The Com­mission awarded damages for injurious affection based on the reduction of the lot size, reduction in the frontage of the lot and a loss of access to the highway - The Manitoba Court of Appeal reduced the award, finding that the Commission over­compensated the owner by creating sepa­rate heads of damage that overlapped, instead of following the traditional practice of making one award for injurious affec­tion.

Cases Noticed:

Woelk v. Halvorson, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 430; 33 N.R. 232; 24 A.R. 620; [1981] 1 W.W.R. 289; 14 C.C.L.T. 181; 114 D.L.R.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 13].

Oakfield Estate Ltd. v. Halifax County (Municipality) (1994), 129 N.S.R.(2d) 212; 362 A.P.R. 212; 52 L.C.R. 278 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 14].

Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority v. Dell Holdings Ltd. (1991), 50 O.A.C. 192; 45 L.C.R. 250 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 14].

Pezim v. British Columbia Securities Commission et al., [1994] 2 S.C.R. 557; 168 N.R. 321; 46 B.C.A.C. 1; 75 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 15].

Statutes Noticed:

Expropriation Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. E-190; C.C.S.M., c. E-190, sect. 25(1), sect. 25(2), sect. 30(1), sect. 30(2) [para. 17]; sect. 44(1), sect. 44(2), sect. 44(3) [para. 12].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Todd, Eric C.E., The Law of Expropriation and Compensation in Canada (2nd Ed. 1992), p. 335 [para. 19].

Counsel:

W.G. McFetridge, for the appellant;

A. Dobrowolski, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on May 16, 1995, before Scott, C.J.M., Philp and Lyon, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal. On Octo­ber 10, 1995, Lyon, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the court.