Shindle v. Yorkton (City), (1982) 18 Sask.R. 42 (CA)

• Judge: Woods, Brownridge and MacDonald, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: August 11, 1982
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1982), 18 Sask.R. 42 (CA)

Shindle v. Yorkton (1982), 18 Sask.R. 42 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Shindle v. Yorkton, City of

(No. 7181)

Indexed As: Shindle v. Yorkton (City)

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Woods, Brownridge and MacDonald, JJ.A.

August 11, 1982.

Summary:

In 1976 the City of Yorkton took, for the purpose of a residential subdivision, 160 acres of farmland. The owners of the land claimed compensation under the Municipal Expropriation Act.

The Saskatchewan District Court awarded the claimants $192,000.00 - see paragraphs 44 to 114 below. The owners appealed to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal but varied the award of interest to the owners.

Expropriation - Topic 1036

Methods of valuation - Comparative sales or market data method - The claimants' farmland consisted of 160 acres and the highest and best use of the land was as a residential subdivision - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal affirmed the choice of the comparative sales method rather than the development or subdivision method of valuing the land (see paragraphs 9 to 13 and 75 to 88).

Expropriation - Topic 1313

Elements of compensation - Special value to owner - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal referred to the circumstances when compensation will be awarded for special value to the owner in addition to the market value of the land (see paragraph 22) - The Court of Appeal stated that there can be no special value to an owner where land is not being used for its highest and best use, because the market value for such land includes any special purposes to which the owner could put the land (see paragraph 30).

Expropriation - Topic 1656

Measure of compensation - Interest - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal awarded a claimant interest at 9% per annum (being the rough average of rates paid by banks on deposits during the relevant period) on part of a compensation award - The Court of Appeal limited interest to 5% on the balance of the award which the expropriating authority paid into court pursuant to court order (see paragraphs 35 to 42).

Expropriation - Topic 2203

Appeals - Variation of award on appeal - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal referred to the circumstances when an appeal court has jurisdiction to vary an award of an arbitrator (see paragraph 12).

Expropriation - Topic 3003

Compensation awards - Farmland - In 1976 the City of Yorkton took, for the purpose of a residential subdivision, 160 acres of farmland - The land was located just outside the city limits - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal affirmed an award to the owners of $190,000.00 for 140 acres (or $1,357.00 per acre) and $2,000.00 for 20 acres of land which flooded in the spring (see paragraphs 101 to 106).

Cases Noticed:

Hulmann v. Durham Board of Education (1974), 7 L.C.R. 152, refd to. [paras. 11 and 78].

Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto v. Loblaw Groceterias Co. Ltd. (1971), 1 L.C.R. 118; [1972] S.C.R. 600, refd to. [para. 11].

City of Halifax v. S. Cunard and Co. Ltd. (1974), 5 L.C.R. 81; 6 N.S.R.(2d) 492; 1 N.R. 246; [1975] 1 S.C.R. 458; 43 D.L.R.(3d) 449, refd to. [paras. 11 and 78].

Harris et al. v. Minister of Lands and Forests (1975), 10 L.C.R. 243, refd to. [paras. 11 and 78].

Whittier Park Development Corp. Ltd. v. Metropolitan Corporation of Greater Winnipeg (1973), 5 L.C.R. 39 as varied in (1974), 6 L.C.R. 322; [1974] 4 W.W.R. 236, refd to. [paras. 11 and 78].

Campbell & Haliburton (Regina) Ltd. v. Saskatchewan Telecommunications (1981), 21 L.C.R. 12; 6 Sask.R. 123, refd to. [para. 12].

The King v. Eastern Trust Company, [1945] 4 D.L.R. 563, refd to. [para. 17].

Valley Improvement Company Ltd. v. Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, [1961] O.R. 783; 29 D.L.R.(2d) 593; [1963] S.C.R. 15, refd to. [para. 17].

Teubner v. Minister of Highways, [1965] 2 O.R. 221; 50 D.L.R.(2d) 195, refd to. [para. 17].

Burkay Properties Ltd. v. Wascana Centre Authority (1972), 2 L.C.R. 9, reversed (1973), 4 L.C.R. 59, refd to. [para. 17].

Apro Developments Ltd. v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia, 22 N.R. 451; [1978] 2 S.C.R. 718, refd to. [para. 22].

Province of Manitoba v. Figol (1973), 4 L.C.R. 329, refd to. [paras. 28 and 99].

N.J.T.B. Investments Ltd. et al. v. The Province of Saskatchewan (1978), 14 L.C.R. 98, refd to. [para. 29].

Smith-Roles Ltd. v. Saskatoon, [1977] 1 W.W.R. 604, refd to. [paras. 29 and 107].

Kemp v. Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority (1974), 6 L.C.R. 12, refd to. [paras. 30 and 98].

Re Victoria & Grey Trust Co. v. Trent University (1970), 9 D.L.R.(3d) 134, refd to. [para. 34].

Cochin Pipe Lines Ltd. v. Rattray et al., 27 A.R. 32; [1981] 1 W.W.R. 732, refd to. [para. 34].

Re Arbitration Act, Tyacke v. Reginam (1964), 49 W.W.R. 288, refd to. [paras. 35 and 107].

Smith-Roles v. City of Saskatoon, [1977] 1 W.W.R. 604, affirmed [1978] 5 W.W.R. 79, refd to. [para. 35].

British Pacific Properties Ltd. v. The Minister of Highways and Public Works, 33 N.R. 98; [1980] 2 S.C.R. 283, refd to. [para. 35].

Eddy v. Minister of Transportation and Communication (1974), 7 L.C.R. 120, refd to. [para. 81].

POW Investments Ltd. v. Nova Scotia (1973), 5 L.C.R. 57; 5 N.S.R.(2d) 121, affd. 6 L.C.R. 305; 45 D.L.R.(3d) 398; 2 N.R. 145; [1975] 2 S.C.R. 86, refd to. [para. 87].

Cedar Rapids Manufacturing and Power Co. v. Lacoste et al. (1914), 16 D.L.R. 168; [1914] A.C. 569, refd to. [para. 93].

Diggon-Hibben Ltd. v. The King, [1949] 4 D.L.R. 785; S.C.R. 712; 64 C.R.T.C. 295, refd to. [para. 93].

Gagetown Lumber Co. Ltd. v. The Queen et al. (1956), 6 D.L.R.(2d) 657; [1957] S.C.R. 44, refd to. [para. 93].

Maxwell v. The King (1917), 17 Ex. C.R. 97, refd to. [para. 95].

Federal District Commission v. Leahy, [1940] Ex. C.R. 115, refd to. [para. 98].

Lincoln Village v. Waterloo (1977), 12 L.C.R. 232, refd to. [para. 98].

Dietrich et al. v. Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority (1973), 6 L.C.R. 278, refd to. [para. 98].

Lacoste et al. v. Cedar Rapids Mfg. & Power Co., [1928] 2 D.L.R. 12; 47 K.B. 271 (Que.); 34 C.R.C. 399 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 105].

Purdy et al. v. Province of Nova Scotia, 6 L.C.R. 70, refd to. [para. 105].

Genman Holdings Ltd. v. New Mount Sinai Hospital (No. 2) (1974), 6 L.C.R. 186, refd to. [para. 111].

Junek v. R.M. Fertile Belt No. 183 (1973), 4 L.C.R. 270, refd to. [para. 111].

Toronto v. Loblaw Groceterias Co. Ltd. (1971), 1 L.C.R. 118; 21 D.L.R.(3d) 551, refd to. [para. 78].

Statutes Noticed:

Municipal Expropriation Act, R.S.S. 1965, c. 166, sect. 7(1) [para. 107]; sect. 10 [para. 108].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Todd, Law of Expropriation, p. 168 [para. 85].

Counsel:

Aaron A. Fox, for the appellants;

E.J. Moss, Q.C., and R. Kachur, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard by WOODS, BROWNRIDGE and MacDONALD, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by BROWNRIDGE, J.A., at Regina, Saskatchewan, on August 11, 1982.