Expropriation

Expropriation

Eminent Domain #

  • Riparian Rights

    An introduction to common law riparian rights, and context for their place in the 19th century lumber industry. This short piece will serve as useful background to understanding the McLaren v Caldwell saga.

  • McLaren v Caldwell et al

    McLaren and Caldwell were both in the lumber industry. McLaren owned land that included streams which he claimed were not navigable before he improved them. Caldwell attempted to run his lumber down those streams. Ontario had passed legislation to allow logs to pass freely down streams.

  • House of Commons Debate (Rivers and Streams Bill, 1881)

    In the course of the legal dispute between McLaren and Caldwell, members of the governing federal Conservatives the Liberal party in opposition debated the whether or not to "disallow" the legislation at issue based on whether or not it was legitimate for the state to expropriate private land without compensation.

  • Perry v Clissold

    A parcel of land was enclosed and continually and exclusively possessed by Clissold. That land was expropriated by the Crown to build a school. The Public Works Act stipulated that the expropriation of private property to build schools must be compensated.

De Facto (Constructive) Expropriation #

  • Manitoba Fisheries Ltd. v R

    The appellant company brings a case against the federal government for compensation, claiming that federal legislation creating a monopoly on the purchase, processing and sale of freshwater fish inter-provincially and internationally.

  • Pennsylvania Coal Co. v Mahon

    Pennsylvania Coal and Mahon had an agreement for the coal company to mine beneath Mahon's surface land. Under subsequent legislation, coal mining near houses was forbidden.

  • Expropriation Act

    Provincial legislation addressing the expropriation ('taking') of land.

  • Mariner Real Estate Ltd v Nova Scotia (Attorney General)

    Mariner's land was classed as a beach, which involved numerous restrictions, and meant ministerial permission was necessary to construct a dwelling. The Minister refused to grant permission for the claimant to build a home.

  • Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v Vancouver (City)

    BC granted land to CPR to build a railway line. Traffic declined, and CPR proposed to redevelop the land for residential and commercial use or sell the land to the city. Instead, Vancouver passed a bylaw that designated the land for public use and transportation.

  • Annapolis Group Inc. v Halifax Regional Municipality

    Halifax Regional Municipality (HRM) zoned land owned by Annapolis to preclude development without approval from the municipality. HRM then refused to grant Annapolis Group's requests to develop the land and allegedly treated the land as a public park.