link to Expropriation Law Centre home page

Cases

Menu
Home
News
Events
Statutes
Cases
Articles
Reviews
Photos
Statistics
Publications
Professional Directory
Links

Free Case Law

[Back]	DECISION DIGEST
Record no. 480

Case name:

Whitechapel Estates Ltd. v. British Columbia (Minister of Transportation and Highways)

Date:

2002-06-04

Jurisdiction:

Canada - British Columbia

Court:

Expropriation Compensation Board

Release registry:

[Subscribers only]

Court file:

[Subscribers only]

Order no.:

[Subscribers only]

Parties:	Name	Appearing as
	Delsom Estates Ltd.	Claimant
	Elsom, Norman Dennis	Claimant
	Piccadilly Estates Ltd.	Claimant
	Whitechapel Estates Ltd.	Claimant
	British Columbia (Minister of Transportation and Highways)	Authority

Before:	Decision maker	Designation
	Jamal, Azim S.M.	Member
	Linsley, Martin A.	Member
	Walls, Sharon I.	Vice-Chair

Lawyers:	Name	Appearing for
	Goodwin, David H.	Claimant
	Hincks, Alan V.W.	Authority

Experts:	Name	Occupation	Appearing for
	Blanchette, Chris D.	Appraiser	Claimant
	Buchan, John T.	Engineer	Claimant
	Dhillon, Jag	Planner	Claimant
	Aberdeen, David	Property Negotiator	Authority
	Jorden, Michael A.	Planner	Authority
	Kruger, William	Engineer	Authority
	Watson, Candace C.	Appraiser	Authority

Taking type:

[Subscribers only]

Valuation date:

[Subscribers only]

Case elements:

[Subscribers only]

Decision:

Compensation award by the British Columbia Expropriation Compensation Board pursuant to the Expropriation Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 125. Three partial expropriations of land totaling approximately 11 acres from a 147 acre development property. In addition, the Authority acquired a storm sewer easement. The land was required for a highway project. Awards were made for the market value of the land taken, reduction in market value to the remainder and disturbance damages for pre-taking engineering expenses. The Board rejected a substantial claim for business loss caused by delay to the Claimants' development. The Board found there was a delay caused by the taking, however, the delay had worked to the advantage of the Claimants and no loss was suffered thereby. The award totaled $1,951,417.

Comment:

[Subscribers only]

Statute references:

[Subscribers only]

Case references:

[Subscribers only]

Related decisions:
	Earlier
	[1993] EXLAW 48	B.C. E.C.B.	1993-06-16
	[1993] EXLAW 301	B.C. C.A.	1993-11-15
	[1994] EXLAW 109	B.C. S.C.	1994-08-24
	[1994] EXLAW 79	B.C. E.C.B.	1994-12-05
	[1994] EXLAW 80	B.C. E.C.B.	1994-12-06
	[1995] EXLAW 34	B.C. C.A.	1995-02-09
	[1996] EXLAW 160	B.C. E.C.B.	1996-02-27
	[1996] EXLAW 167	B.C. E.C.B.	1996-05-10
	[1998] EXLAW 253	B.C. E.C.B.	1998-01-14
	[1998] EXLAW 272	B.C. C.A.	1998-08-18
	[1999] EXLAW 294	B.C. S.C.	1999-03-02
	Later
	[2002] EXLAW 323	B.C. C.A.	2002-10-04
	[2003] EXLAW 305	B.C. C.A.	2003-01-27

Neutral citation:

N/A

ExLaw citation:

[2002] EXLAW 313

Parallel citations:

(2002) 78 L.C.R. 32

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.

Online Subscription Service