Supreme Court of Canada
Laiterie Thérésienne Inc. v. Office des Autoroutes du Québec, [1974] R.C.S. 435
Date: 1973-05-24
Laiterie Thérésienne Inc. (Plaintiff) Appellant;
and
Quebec Autoroutes Authority (Defendant) Respondent.
1973: May 9; 1973: May 24.
Present: Fauteux C.J. and Abbott, Pigeon, Laskin and Dickson JJ.
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF QUEEN’S BENCH, APPEAL SIDE, PROVINCE OF QUEBEC
Expropriation—Compensation—Valuation—Damages to business—Return of record to Public Service Board denied—Judgment “a quo” not in error.
Respondent expropriated a parcel of land owned by appellant, which operated a dairy on it. Following refusal of the compensation offered by respondent and arbitration before the Public Service Board, an order was made by the Board fixing the compensation owed, including a provision for damages to appellant’s business, the whole subject to the transfer by respondent to appellant of two strips of land and the establishment of a perpetual right of way benefiting appellant’s land in accordance with respondent’s offer. The Court of Appeal set aside the Board’s order and the Superior Court judgment homologating it, subject to the transfer and the right of way, and substantially reduced the amount awarded for damages caused by the expropriation and disputed by respondent. Hence the appeal to this Court, seeking in addition the return of the record to the Public Service Board, or alternatively, reinstatement of the Superior Court judgment.
Held: The appeal should be dismissed.
No motion was ever presented to the Court of Appeal for an order that the record be returned to the Board, and no reason was shown to justify this Court granting such a motion. Further, the judgment a quo has not been shown to be in error.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Queen’s Bench, Appeal side, province of Quebec, setting aside a decision of the Superior Court. Appeal dismissed.
[Page 436]
Y. Jasmin, Q.C., and P. Pinard, for the plaintiff, appellant.
M. Guibault, for the defendant, respondent.
The judgment of the Court was rendered by
THE CHIEF JUSTICE—Appellant had been the owner since 1961 of a piece of land having a total area of 47,360 square feet, on which it operated a dairy. In 1965 respondent expropriated a parcel of this land, which it needed for a road connecting the Laurentian Autoroute with provincial highway 65. The expropriated area consisted of 12,497 square feet and had been improved, but appellant had erected no buildings on it. Respondent’s offer of compensation, amounting to $13,924, was refused and it became necessary to proceed to arbitration before the Public Service Board. The Board’s order set compensation for the expropriation at $123,524, that is $13,924 for the value of the expropriated land, improvements and depreciation on the residue, and $109,600 for damages to appellant’s business, the whole subject to the transfer by respondent to appellant of two strips of land with a total area of 7,838 square feet, for the nominal sum of $ 1.00.
The Board’s order was homologated by judgment of the Superior Court, dated December 19, 1968, and this judgment was appealed by respondent. In the Court of Appeal the value placed on the expropriated land by the Board was not challenged, and the discussion centred on the question of the damages caused by the expropriation to appellant’s business. By a unanimous decision the Court of Appeal set aside the Board’s order and the Superior Court judgment homologating it, and set the compensation for the expropriation at $38,924, including $25,000 for damages, the whole subject to the transfer to appellant of two strips of land as mentioned in the Superior Court judgment, and the establishment of a perpetual right of way benefiting appellant’s land in accordance with respondent’s offer. It should be noted, as is clearly indicated in the reasons supporting the
[Page 437]
judgment of the Court of Appeal, that the sum of $38,424 mentioned in the formal judgment was the result of a clerical error, and should read $38,924.
By its appeal to this Court appellant seeks to have the judgment of the Court of Appeal quashed and the record returned to the Public Service Board so that it may complete its evidence respecting the damages it suffered from this expropriation, or alternatively, to have the judgment of the Superior Court homologating the order by the Board restored.
Appellant admitted that it had never presented to the Court of Appeal a motion for an order that the record be returned to the Board for the aforementioned purposes; and moreover we have been shown no reason to justify our granting such a motion. Further, appellant has failed to show that the judgment a quo is erroneous.
It follows that the appeal must be dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Solicitors for the plaintiff, appellant: Lacroix, Viau, Bélanger, Hébert, Mailloux & Beauregard, Montreal.
Solicitors for the defendant, respondent: Godard & Ray, Ste-Agathe-des-Monts.
Email this Content