St. Pierre v. Ontario (Minister of Transportation and Communications),

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Judge: McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson and Le Dain, JJ.
• Citation: (1987), 75 N.R. 291 (SCC),38 LCR 1,22 OAC 63,[1987] SCJ No 27 (QL),39 DLR (4th) 10,75 NR 291,40 CCLT 200,4 ACWS (3d) 343,1987 CanLII 60 (SCC),[1987] 1 SCR 906,45 RPR 298
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Date: 04 June 1987

St. Pierre v. Ont. (1987), 75 N.R. 291 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Larry St. Pierre and Mary Grace St. Pierre v. The Minister of Transportation and Communications

(18268)

Indexed As: St. Pierre v. Ontario (Minister of Transportation and Communications)

Supreme Court of Canada

McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson and Le Dain, JJ.

June 4, 1987.

Summary:

Landowners owned 125 acres of land in a peaceful rural setting. In 1976-77 the Minister constructed a highway on adjacent lands. No land was taken from the landowners. They claimed compensation from the Minister for injurious affection to their land.

The Land Compensation Board, now the Ontario Municipal Board, in a decision reported at (1981), 21 L.C.R. 68, upheld the claim.

The Ontario Divisional Court affirmed the decision of the Land Compensation Board (1982), 38 O.R.(2d) 341; 25 L.C.R. 1.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the Minister's appeal. (1983), 43 O.R.(2d) 767; 2 D.L.R.(4th) 558; 28 L.C.R. 1. The landowners appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Torts - Topic 1010

Nuisance - Type of injury or damage required - A landowner claimed compensation from the Ontario Government for injurious affection to his land following the construction of a highway on adjacent land - No land was taken from the landowner - The Supreme Court of Canada held that to succeed, the claimant must prove physical injury to the land or a substantial interference with the use or enjoyment of land which is unreasonable in the circumstances - The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the landowner's claim - See paragraphs 8 to 12.

Torts - Topic 1250

Particular nuisances - Highways - Construction and maintenance - A landowner claimed compensation from the Ontario Government for injurious affection of his land following the construction of a highway on adjacent land - No land was taken from the landowner - The landowner alleged that damage was the decrease in the land's value because of loss of view, prospect and amenities - The Supreme Court of Canada held that these were not actionable damage - The only damages allowable are for loss occasioned by the construction of the highway - See paragraphs 8 and 12.

Torts - Topic 1003

Nuisance - Interests protected - Public interest vs. private interest - A landowner claimed compensation from the Ontario Government for injurious affection of his land following the construction of a highway on adjacent land - No land was taken from the landowner - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that in the balancing process inherent in the law of nuisance, the utility of highways for the public good far outweighs the disruption and injury affecting adjacent lands - See paragraph 13.

Statutes - Topic 3003

Statutes - Interpretation - Effect of plain intention - A landowner claimed compensation from the Ontario Government for injurious affection of his land following the construction of a highway on adjacent land - No land was taken from the landowner - The claim was brought under the Expropriations Act of Ontario, which referred to the common law for determining liability - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Court's task was to interpret the language of the Expropriations Act - The court consequently discussed the law of nuisance the only available common law basis for the landowner's claim - See paragraphs 3 to 11.

Cases Noticed:

Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Albin (1919), 59 S.C.R. 151, refd to. [para. 5].

Fried v. Minister of Transportation and Communications (1972), 3 L.C.R. 262, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. MacArthur (1904), 34 S.C.R. 570, refd to. [para. 6].

Pugliese et al. v. National Capital commission (1977), 17 O.R.(2d) 129, refd to. [para. 7].

Nor-Video Services Ltd. v. Ontario Hydro (1978), 4 C.C.L.T. 244, dist. [paras. 7, 11].

T.H. Critelli Ltd. v. Lincoln Turst and Savings Co. et al. (1978), 86 D.L.R.(3d) 724, dist. [para. 7, 11].

Schenck et al. v. Ontario (1981), 34 O.R.(2d) 595 (H.C.), dist. [paras. 7, 11].

William Aldred's Case (1610), 9 Co. Rep. 57 b; 77 E.R. 816, refd to. [para. 13].

Foli v. Devonshire Club (1887), 3 T.L.R. 706, refd to. [para. 13].

Walker v. Pioneer Construction Co. (1967) Ltd. (1975), 8 O.R.(2d) 35 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 13].

Muirhead v. Timbers Brothers Sand & Gravel Ltd. (1977), 3 C.C.L.T. 1 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 13].

Statutes Noticed:

Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 148, sect. 1, sect. 21 [para. 8].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Buckley, R.A., The Law of Nuisance (1981) [para. 13].

Fleming, John G., The Law of Torts (4th Ed, 1971) [para. 7].

Fleming, John G., The Law of Torts (6th Ed. 1983) [para. 13].

Linden, Allen M., Canadian Tort Law (3rd Ed)., 1982 [para. 13].

Street, Harry, The Law of Torts (6th Ed. 1976) [para. 10].

Counsel:

Earl A. Cherniak, Q.C., and Mary Anne Sanderson, for the appellants;

R. Allan O'Donnell, Q.C., for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on March 26, 1986, before McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson and Le Dain, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The following decision of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered by McIntyre, J., on June 4, 1987,

Chouinard, J., did not take part in the judgment. The respondent consented to a quorum of four judges.