|
Expropriations (Fed) - Expropriation Act. Milne v. Canada
In Milne v. Canada (Fed CA, 2026) the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed a landowner's appeal, here concerning compensation under the federal Expropriation Act:[6] Second, the Act sets out the compensation available for a taking of land. Although the Act must be given a large and liberal interpretation (Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority v. Dell Holdings Ltd., 1997 CanLII 400 (SCC), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 32), the compensation it provides is different and, in places, narrower than the damages that might be available in tort. For example, compensation for adverse effects, including injurious affection, is limited to economic loss and turns on the decrease in market value of the remaining lands caused by use of the expropriated land for public purposes. The Act also does not deal with takings of land in earlier expropriation processes. And certain sections, such as section 39, also limit the compensation.
....
[10] In deciding the narrow issue remitted to it, the Federal Court did not err in law. It accurately identified what was in issue (at para. 28) and correctly charged itself on the monetary relief the Act permits and the principles of the Act (at paras. 31-34). In particular, its conclusion that the appellant was not entitled to the disturbance damages he sought because it would result in betterment is consistent with the law set out in expropriation cases, albeit under different statutes, such as Re Adams et al. and Minister of Transportation and Communications, 1980 CanLII 1637 (ON HCJ), 1980 CanLII1637 (Ont. S.C.) and Jacobsen v. Alberta, 1979 CanLII 3765 (AB LCB), both considered by the Federal Court at para. 34 of its reasons. The Federal Court was correct in saying that the purpose of the Act is not to cure deficiencies in prior mitigation efforts or enforce compliance with federal guidelines but rather to compensate only for the losses arising from the particular taking in issue (at para. 35). Here we note that there was no evidence before the Federal Court on any loss in value attributable to a roughly five decibel increase in noise arising from the new railway line. . Milne v. Canada
In Milne v. Canada (Fed CA, 2023) the Federal Court of Appeal considered an appeal from a trial ruling of the Federal Court, here under the federal Expropriation Act. The expropriation was for a railway expansion described as a 'sliver' of land, but the appellate litigation centred on the effect of the sound increase in the owner's remaining lands. The case contains little insight into the federal Expropriation Act but is useful for it's review of highly technical 'noise' evidence, which may be interest to anyone involved in large-scale nuisance noise issues.
|
