| Case name: |
Loiselle v. Canada |
|
|
|
| Jurisdiction: |
Canada - Federal |
|
| Court: |
Supreme Court of Canada |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ExLaw citation: |
[1962] EXLAW 3 |
|
|
|
| Parallel citations: |
(1962) 35 DLR (2d) 274 |
| |
[1962] SCJ No. 44 |
| |
[1962] SCR 624 |
|
|
|
|
|
