| Case name: |
Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Vancouver (City) |
|
|
|
| Jurisdiction: |
Canada - Federal |
|
| Court: |
Supreme Court of Canada |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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 |
Designation |
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
|
