| Case name: |
Langley Estates Ltd. v. British Columbia (Minister of Transportation and Highways) |
|
|
|
| Jurisdiction: |
Canada - British Columbia |
|
| Court: |
Arbitration proceeding |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Parties: |
Name |
|
Appearing as |
| |
Langley Estates Ltd. |
|
Claimant |
| |
British Columbia (Minister of Transportation and Highways) |
|
Authority |
|
| Before: |
Decision maker |
Designation |
|
Cassady, George P. |
Arbitrator |
| |
Todd, Eric C.E. |
Arbitrator |
| |
Wilson, J. Galt |
Arbitrator |
|
| Lawyers: |
Name |
|
Appearing for |
| |
Suiker, Heber M. |
|
Claimant |
| |
Stewart, N. Logan |
|
Authority |
|
| Experts: |
Name |
Occupation |
Appearing for |
| |
Boxer, Joseph J. |
Building Contractor |
Claimant |
| |
Oikawa, A. George |
Appraiser |
Claimant |
| |
Pavelek, Richard A. |
Landscape Architect |
Claimant |
| |
Rhone, William R. |
Architect |
Claimant |
| |
Strachan, Robert |
Engineer |
Claimant |
| |
Tanner, Tass |
Planner |
Claimant |
| |
Barron, Kenneth E. |
Engineer |
Authority |
| |
Grant, Danny R. |
Appraiser |
Authority |
| |
Kuun, Zoltan |
Engineer |
Authority |
| |
Wylie, G. Douglas |
Architect |
Authority |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Decision: |
Award of compensation by a panel of arbitrators appointed pursuant to the Ministry of Transportation and Highways Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 280. Partial taking of 5 acres from two parcels of land totalling 40 acres located in the City of Langley. The land was required for the Langley By-Pass highway. During the hearing, most of the claims were settled. The arbitrators were required to consider only a claim for injurious affection.
The Claimant argued that the highest and best use for the property both before and after the taking was for a multi-family residential development. The claim for injurious affection was based on the premise that three major steps would be required to mitigate the impact of the highway. This included a loss of residential units, the cost to construct a berm and fence to shield traffic noise and acoustical treatment of 144 residential units. The claim totalled $896,312.
It was held that the Claimant had not discharged the burden of proving loss in value to the remaining land. No award was made for injurious affection. Costs were awarded to the Authority. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ExLaw citation: |
[1982] EXLAW 10 |
|
| Parallel citations: |
(1982) 26 L.C.R. 173 |
|
|
|
