Expropriation Law Centre




Peterson Stark Scott


Free Case Law
Record no. 1076
Case name: Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Vancouver (City)
Date: 2006-02-23
Jurisdiction: Canada - Federal
Court: Supreme Court of Canada
Registry: [Subscribers only]
File: [Subscribers only]
Order no.: [Subscribers only]
Parties: Name   Appearing as
  Canadian Pacific Railway Company   Appellant
  Vancouver (City)   Respondent
  British Columbia Chamber of Commerce   Intervenor
  British Columbia Real Estate Association   Intervenor
  Business Council of British Columbia   Intervenor
  Canadian Home Builders' Association of British Columbia   Intervenor
  Council of Tourism Associations of British Columbia   Intervenor
  Mining Association of British Columbia   Intervenor
  New Car Dealers Association of British Columbia   Intervenor
  Retail Council of Canada   Intervenor
  Urban Development Institute (Pacific Region)   Intervenor
  Urban Development Institute of Canada   Intervenor
Before: Decision maker Title
Abella, Rosalie Silberman J.
  Bastarache, Michel J.
  Binnie, William Ian Corneil J.
  LeBel, Louis J.
  McLachlin, Beverley Marion C.J.C.
Lawyers: Name   Appearing for
  Kenward, Peter H.   Appellant
  Horne, Susan B.   Respondent
  Macintosh, George K.   Respondent
  van Ert, Gib   Intervenor
  Voith, Peter G.   Intervenor
Taking type/date: [Subscribers only]
Case elements: [Subscribers only]
Decision: Appeal by Canadian Pacific Railway from a successful appeal by the Respondent City of Vancouver of a trial court decision holding that an Official Development Plan bylaw of the City of Vancouver was ultra vires. The bylaw in question purported to restrict use of the Appellant's land. The subject property was a former rail corridor located in the City of Vancouver. The Appellant alleged that enactment of the bylaw by the Respondent amounted to constructive expropriation. However, it was held that the Vancouver Charter, S.B.C. 1953, c. 55, expressly permitted the Respondent to enact the bylaw without liability for constructive expropriation. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Comment: [Subscribers only]
Statute references: [Subscribers only]
Case references: [Subscribers only]
Related decisions:      
  [2002] EXLAW 327 B.C. S.C. 2002-10-29
  [2003] EXLAW 331 B.C. C.A. 2003-08-22
  [2004] EXLAW 304 B.C. C.A. 2004-04-07
  [2004] EXLAW 20 S.C.C. 2004-12-16
  [2015] EXLAW 1 B.C. S.C. 2015-01-20
Neutral citation: 2006 SCC 5
ExLaw citation: [2006] EXLAW 301
Parallel citations: (2006) 145 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1140
  (2006) 221 B.C.A.C. 1
  (2006) 262 D.L.R. (4th) 454
  (2006) 88 L.C.R. 161
  (2006) 18 M.P.L.R. (4th) 1
  (2006) 345 N.R. 140
  (2006) 40 R.P.R. (4th) 159
  [2006] S.C.J. No. 5
  [2006] 1 S.C.R. 227
  (2006) 364 W.A.C. 1
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:


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


© 2021 Dicta Legal Services Ltd.
Page last updated: April 1, 2020