Expropriation Law Centre


You are here: Home > Cases


Cohen Highley LLP


Free Case Law
Record no. 1223
Case name: Pacific Great Eastern Railway Co. v. Larsen
Date: 1915-03-01
Jurisdiction: Canada - British Columbia
Court: Supreme Court
Registry: [Subscribers only]
File: [Subscribers only]
Order no.: [Subscribers only]
Parties: Name   Appearing as
  A. Linton & Co.   Claimant
  Larsen, Peter   Claimant
  Pacific Great Eastern Railway Co.   Authority
Before: Decision maker Title
MacDonald, William Alexander J.
Lawyers: Name   Appearing for
  Armour, Douglas   Claimant
  Bodwell, E.V.   Authority
  Douglas, A.H.   Authority
Taking type/date: [Subscribers only]
Case elements: [Subscribers only]
Decision: Appeal by stated case from an arbitration proceeding conducted pursuant to the Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1911, c. 11. The arbitration proceedings were commenced to determine compensation payable for the partial expropriation of a strip of land owned by the Claimant Larsen and subject to a lease in favour of the Claimant A. Linton & Co. The expropriation was conducted pursuant to the British Columbia Railway Act, R.S.B.C. 1911, c. 194. The subject property was located in the District of North Vancouver and the land was required for railway purposes. The arbitrators posed two questions for determination by the Court. The first was whether any increased value to the remaining land by reason of the passage of the railway through the subject property should be set-off only against damages payable for severance or whether any such benefit should also be set-off against the value of the land taken. It was held that any benefit to the remaining land beyond the increased value to all land in the locality should be set-off against both the amount awarded as the damages for the severance and the amount awarded for the value of the land taken. The second question posed by the arbitrators was whether they were required to produce a single award or whether they were also required to determine the amount to be paid to each Claimant. It was held that the arbitrators were required to determine how much was to be paid to each Claimant.
Comment: [Subscribers only]
Statute references: [Subscribers only]
Case references: [Subscribers only]
Related decisions:      
Neutral citation:  
ExLaw citation: [1915] EXLAW 3
Parallel citations: [1915] B.C.J. No. 77
  (1915) 22 B.C.R. 4
  (1915) 8 W.W.R. 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