link to Expropriation Law Centre home page

Cases



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

Advertisement

Heritage Coffee Company Ltd.

Advertisement


Free Case Law
[Back] DECISION DIGEST  
Record no. 1203
Case name: W.J. Ellis Co. Ltd. v. Kamloops (City)
Date: 1984-02-15
Jurisdiction: Canada - British Columbia
Court: Arbitration proceeding
Release registry: [Subscribers only]
Court file: [Subscribers only]
Order no.: [Subscribers only]
Parties: Name   Appearing as
  Edwardson, Mary Linda   Claimant
  Loehr, Joan Patricia   Claimant
  Piper, James Edward   Claimant
  W.J. Ellis Company Limited   Claimant
  Kamloops (City)   Authority
Decision makers: Name Designation
Cassady, George P. Arbitrator
  Ladner, Hugh G. Arbitrator
  Wilson, J. Galt Arbitrator
Lawyers: Name   Appearing for
  Burke, Reinhard   Claimant
  Blair, Richard M.L.   Authority
Experts: Name Occupation Appearing for
  Flynn, Dennis Michael Appraiser Claimant
  Grant, Danny R. Appraiser Claimant
  Watson, Candace C. Appraiser Authority
Taking type: [Subscribers only]
Valuation date: [Subscribers only]
Case elements: [Subscribers only]
Decision: Award of compensation by an arbitration board established pursuant to the Municipal Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 290. Full taking of four adjacent parcels of land in the City of Kamloops. The subject property had been used by the Claimants for their automotive and machine shop business. However the parties were agreed that the highest and best use of the land was for multi-family residential development. Compensation was awarded for market value of the bare land in the amount of $234,576.00. Additional amounts were awarded for the depreciated value of buildings in the amount of $126,500, for the value of equipment that could not be relocated in the amount of $6,818.75, moving and relocation costs in the amount of $64,984.36, loss of profits in the amount of $25,097.00 and executive time in the amount of $2,500.00. The award totalled $460,476.11 plus costs as provided by the Act. A claim for capital gains tax payable was dismissed as too remote. A claim for the cost of a second move was dismissed. The arbitrators awarded interest as provided by the Act as well as an additional award of interest to reflect market interest rates.
Comment: [Subscribers only]
Statute references: [Subscribers only]
Case references: [Subscribers only]
ExLaw citation: [1984] EXLAW 7
Neutral citation: N/A
Parallel citations: (1984) 29 LCR 321
Related decisions:      
  Earlier
  [1981] EXLAW 17 B.C. S.C. 1981-08-17
  Later
  [1984] EXLAW 8 B.C. S.C. 1984-05-12
  [1984] EXLAW 9 B.C. Arb. 1984-08-03
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



© 2026 Dicta Legal Services Ltd.
Page last updated: November 18, 2024