| Case name: |
Al's Auto Wrecking Ltd. v. Surrey (City) |
|
|
|
| Jurisdiction: |
Canada - British Columbia |
|
| Court: |
Expropriation Compensation Board |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Parties: |
Name |
|
Appearing as |
| |
A-Central Used Auto Parts Ltd. |
|
Claimant |
| |
Al's Auto Wrecking Ltd. |
|
Claimant |
| |
Surrey (City) |
|
Authority |
|
| Before: |
Decision maker |
Designation |
|
Dossa, Firoz R. |
Member |
| |
Linsley, Martin A. |
Member |
| |
Ward, George Arthur |
Member |
|
| Lawyers: |
Name |
|
Appearing for |
| |
Friesen, Kenneth |
|
Claimant |
| |
Capuccinello, I. Anthony |
|
Authority |
|
| Experts: |
Name |
Occupation |
Appearing for |
| |
Deremo, Tim |
Real Estate Agent |
Claimant |
| |
Mendel, Douglas L. |
Appraiser |
Claimant |
| |
Spaxman, Ray |
Planner |
Claimant |
| |
Spencer, Elaine |
Accountant |
Claimant |
| |
Symes, Toby McLean |
Valuator |
Claimant |
| |
Buchan, John T. |
Engineer |
Authority |
| |
Crosson, Richard F. |
Valuator |
Authority |
| |
Hooker, Dale C. |
Appraiser |
Authority |
| |
Latta, Neil |
Engineer |
Authority |
| |
Pavlakovic, Mario |
Appraiser |
Authority |
| |
Wollenberg, Jay |
Planner |
Authority |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Decision: |
Application by the Claimants to the British Columbia Expropriation Compensation Board for determination of compensation pursuant to the Expropriation Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 125. Full taking of five lots owned by the Claimant Al's and located in the City of Surrey. One of the lots was an improved industrial property and the others were unimproved. The five lots were contiguous and used together for purposes of an automotive wrecking business. The Claimant A-Central was a company that carried on business from the subject properties. A-Central had a less than arm's length relationship to the Claimant Al's. The land was taken for highway purposes. The Board made an award of $800,000 for market value of the land taken and $10,000 for disturbance damages related to flooding caused by construction of the project prior to expropriation. A claim for a termination allowance was dismissed because the Board found that the business conducted on the subject properties was not a lawful business. In addition, the Board found that it was feasible to relocate the business even though the Claimant had not done so. The total award of $810,000 was less than the Authority's advance payment of $922,000. The overpayment of $112,000 was certified as a debt payable by the Claimant to the Authority. Costs were awarded to the Claimants. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Related decisions: |
|
|
|
| |
Earlier |
| |
| |
Later |
| |
|
|
|
| ExLaw citation: |
[2006] EXLAW 304 |
|
| Parallel citations: |
(2006) 88 L.C.R. 241 |
| |
(2006) 19 M.P.L.R. (4th) 111 |
| |
(2006) 40 R.P.R. (4th) 286 |
|
|
|
