Steel Brothers Canada Ltd. v. Canada, (1986) 1 F.T.R. 22 (TD)

• Judge: Joyal, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 20, 1986
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1986), 1 F.T.R. 22 (TD)

Steel Bros. Can. Ltd. v. Can. (1986), 1 F.T.R. 22 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Steel Brothers Canada Ltd. v. Her Majesty The Queen

(T-2292-84)

Indexed As: Steel Brothers Canada Ltd. v. Canada

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Joyal, J.

January 20, 1986.

Summary:

Steel Brothers Canada Ltd., a lime quarry operator, leased Indian reserve lands from the Crown to operate a lime quarry. Upon renewal of the lease a dispute arose over the rental which was to be based on the current value of the leased land. Steel Bros. commenced an action to have the court determine the current value of the land. The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, valued the land accordingly.

Landlord and Tenant - Topic 2399

Leases - Renewals - Rental, based on land valuation - A lime quarry operator leased Indian reserve lands from the Crown on which to operate a quarry - The lease provided that rental for the land on renewal would be based on the market value of the property as industrial land and the rental for a right of way would be based on the fair market value of the right of way - The Federal Court, Trial Division, was asked to settle a dispute over valuation of the land upon renewal - The court discussed how it valued the land, and valued 30 acres at $195,000, 126 acres at $186,000 and the right of way at $12,264.

Professional Occupations - Topic 4045

Appraisers - Appraisals - Market value - The Federal Court, Trial Division, held that evidence relating to the listing price of properties is admissible in determining the market value of land - The court however stated that such evidence is of little force where there is no supporting evidence on the actual sale price or the market value of the listed property - See paragraphs 26 to 30.

Professional Occupations - Topic 4045

Appraisers - Appraisals - Market value - The Federal Court, Trial Division, referred to the general rule that the more adjustments an appraiser makes to his figures the less reliable the resultant estimate of value - See paragraphs 31, 32, 35, 36.

Professional Occupations - Topic 4045

Appraisers - Appraisals - Market value - The Federal Court, Trial Division, held that where an appraiser mathematically averages the sale prices of allegedly comparable properties to determine property value, the value must be viewed with some caution - See paragraph 34.

Cases Noticed:

Provincial Realty Co. Ltd. v. Province of Nova Scotia (1977), 23 N.S.R.(2d) 347; 32 A.P.R. 347; 13 L.C.R. 34 (N.S. Exp. C.B.), folld., [para. 27].

Downey v. City of Red Deer (1976), 11 L.C.R. 345, folld. [para. 27].

Kossar v. Ministry of Government Services (1978), 16 L.C.R. 93, folld. [para. 27].

Jakubowski et al. v. Minister of Transportation and Communications (1973), 6 L.C.R. 29 (Ont. L.C.B.), not folld. [para. 28].

Dietrich et al. v. Cataraqui Region Conversation Authority (1973), 6 L.C.R. 278, not folld. [para. 29].

Czajkowskyj v. City of Sudbury (1976), 11 L.C.R. 46, not folld. [para. 29].

Henderson et al. v. Minister of Tourism (1981), 43 N.B.R.(2d) 405; 113 A.P.R. 405; 23 L.C.R. 30 (N.B.P.C.B.), not folld. [para. 29].

Ives v. Province of Manitoba, [1970] S.C.R. 465, refd to. [para. 34].

Lerer v. City of Toronto (1971), 1 L.C.R. 341, refd to. [para. 34].

Frye (George) Holdings Ltd. v. St. Clair Region Conservation Authority (1980), 21 L.C.R. 310, refd to. [para. 35].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Coates, John A. and Stephen F. Waque, New Law of Expropriation (1985), pp. 5-32, 5-33 [para. 26]; 5-50 [para. 35].

Todd, Eric C.E., Law of Expropriation and Compensation in Canada (1976), pp. 152 [paras. 31, 34]; 153 [para. 31].

Counsel:

Appearances: S.B. Armstrong, for the plaintiff;

Gordon Kopelow, for the defendant.

Solicitors of Record:

Lawson, Lundell, Lawson & McIntosh, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the plaintiff;

Gardner, Snarch & Allen, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the defendant.

This case was heard on September 10-13, 1985, in Vancouver, British Columbia, before Joyal, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following decision on January 20, 1986: