link to Expropriation Law Centre home page

Cases



Menu

Advertisement

Peterson Stark Scott

Advertisement


Free Case Law
[Back] DECISION DIGEST  
Record no. 1566
Case name: Antrim Truck Centre Ltd. v. Ontario (Minister of Transportation)
Date: 2013-03-07
Jurisdiction: Canada - Federal
Court: Supreme Court of Canada
Release registry: [Subscribers only]
Court file: [Subscribers only]
Order no.: [Subscribers only]
Parties: Name   Appearing as
  Antrim Truck Centre Ltd.   Appellant
  Ontario (Minister of Transportation)   Respondent
  British Columbia (Attorney General)   Intervenor
  Metrolinx   Intervenor
  Toronto (City)   Intervenor
Before: Decision maker Designation
Abella, Rosalie Silberman J.
  Cromwell, Thomas Albert J.
  Fish, Morris J. J.
  Karakatsanis, Andromache J.
  LeBel, Louis J.
  McLachlin, Beverley Marion C.J.C.
  Moldaver, Michael J. J.
  Rothstein, Marshall E. J.
  Wagner, Richard J.
Lawyers: Name   Appearing for
  Rayman, Shane Michael   Appellant
  Temelini, Greg   Appellant
  Compton, Shona L.   Respondent
  MacLarkey, William R.   Respondent
  Marsello, Leonard F.   Respondent
  Wilson, Mallihai R.   Respondent
  Chalmers, Kathryn I.   Intervenor
  Duffy, Patrick G.   Intervenor
  Eades, Jonathan N.   Intervenor
  Longo, Matthew G.   Intervenor
  Rempe, Graham J.   Intervenor
  Taylor, Matthew S.   Intervenor
Experts:  
Taking type: [Subscribers only]
Valuation date: [Subscribers only]
Case elements: [Subscribers only]
Decision: Appeal by a property owner from a decision of the Court of Appeal setting aside an award of compensation. The Appellant owned land adjacent to a public highway on which a truck stop business operated. Customers of the Appellant enjoyed easy access to and from the highway until the Respondent constructed a new highway. The configuration of the new highway eliminated this easy access and the Appellant's business suffered. No land was taken from the Appellant and access to the subject property was maintained at all times. It was held that the Appellant was entitled to compensation pursuant to the Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.26. The appeal was allowed.
Comment: [Subscribers only]
Statute references: [Subscribers only]
Case references: [Subscribers only]
Related decisions:      
  Earlier
  [2008] EXLAW 27 Ont. M.B. 2008-03-26
  [2008] EXLAW 28 Ont. M.B. 2008-08-29
  [2009] EXLAW 22 Ont. M.B. 2009-01-09
  [2010] EXLAW 28 Ont. SCJ Div. 2010-01-14
  [2011] EXLAW 21 Ont. C.A. 2011-06-02
  [2012] EXLAW 20 S.C.C. 2012-02-02
  Later
 
Neutral citation: 2013 SCC 13
ExLaw citation: [2013] EXLAW 2
Parallel citations: (2013) 223 A.C.W.S. (3d) 970
  (2013) 99 C.C.L.T. (3d) 1
  (2013) 73 C.E.L.R. (3d) 1
  (2013) 355 D.L.R. (4th) 666
  (2013) 108 L.C.R. 157
  (2013) 441 N.R. 342
  (2013) 301 O.A.C. 281
  (2013) 26 R.P.R. (5th) 1
  [2013] S.C.J. No. 13
  [2013] 1 S.C.R. 594
Reasons: [Subscribers only]
Digests contain original content produced by ExLaw and copyright in this content is held by Dicta Legal Services Ltd. (dba Expropriation Law Centre). Reasons for decision are the text of original decisions released by the court or tribunal and edited for accuracy where required. No copyright is claimed for these materials.
Join the Mailing List
Enter your name and email address below:
Name:

Email:


Subscribe 
Unsubscribe 

Online Subscription
Service
Online Subscription Service sign-up
Online Subscription Service log-in

Advertisement


© 2024 Dicta Legal Services Ltd.
Page last updated: April 21, 2024