link to Expropriation Law Centre home page

Cases



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

Advertisement

Access Property Services

Advertisement


Free Case Law
[Back] DECISION DIGEST  
Record no. 1232
Case name: Loiselle v. Canada
Date: 1962-06-11
Jurisdiction: Canada - Federal
Court: Supreme Court of Canada
Release registry: [Subscribers only]
Court file: [Subscribers only]
Order no.: [Subscribers only]
Parties: Name   Appearing as
  Canada   Appellant
  Loiselle, Edgar   Respondent
Decision makers: Name Designation
Abbott, Douglas Charles J.
  Fauteaux, Joseph Honore Gerald J.
  Judson, Wilfred J.
  Ritchie, Roland Almon J.
  Taschereau, Robert J.
Lawyers: Name   Appearing for
  Ollivier, Paul M.   Appellant
  Tasse, Roger   Appellant
  Dorval, Francois   Respondent
Experts:  
Taking type: [Subscribers only]
Valuation date: [Subscribers only]
Case elements: [Subscribers only]
Decision: Appeal by Canada from an award of compensation to the Respondent owner. The Respondent operated an automotive service station from his property which was located adjacent to Highway No. 3 at Melocheville, Quebec. As a result of construction of the St. Lawrence Seaway project, Highway No. 3 was diverted to accommodate a new crossing of the nearby St. Lawrence River and the new Seaway. The existing section of highway was closed 80 feet beyond the Respondent's property, leaving the property adjacent to a dead-end street with a reduced traffic volume when compared to the traffic volume under the previous highway configuration. None of the Respondent's land was expropriated. The Respondent sought compensation for business losses and a reduction in value of his land. It was held that although the highway had been relocated by the provincial highway authority, the diversion had been constructed at the request and expense of the Seaway Authority, an agent of the Canadian government. The Canadian statute under which the Seaway project was authorized expressly imposed a duty on the Appellant to compensate for injurious affection. The appeal was dismissed.
Comment: [Subscribers only]
Statute references: [Subscribers only]
Case references: [Subscribers only]
ExLaw citation: [1962] EXLAW 3
Neutral citation: N/A
Parallel citations: (1962) 35 D.L.R. (2d) 274
  [1962] S.C.J. No. 44
  [1962] S.C.R. 624
Related decisions:      
  Earlier
  [1960] EXLAW 7 Ex. Ct 1960-10-06
  Later
 
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



© 2024 Dicta Legal Services Ltd.
Page last updated: June 3, 2024