| Case name: |
Ingham v. Creston (Town) |
|
|
|
| Jurisdiction: |
Canada - British Columbia |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Parties: |
Name |
|
Appearing as |
| |
Ingham, Albert Cecil |
|
Appellant |
| |
Ingham, Lillian Rose |
|
Appellant |
| |
Kowalski, Helen |
|
Appellant |
| |
Kowalski, Russel |
|
Appellant |
| |
Kowalski, Samuel |
|
Appellant |
| |
Creston (Town) |
|
Respondent |
| |
Jamieson, Frank Herbert |
|
Respondent |
| |
Jamieson, Mildred Johanna |
|
Respondent |
|
| Decision makers: |
Name |
Designation |
|
Esson, William A. |
J.A. |
| |
McEachern, Allan |
C.J.B.C. |
| |
Rowles, Mildred Anne |
J.A. |
|
| Lawyers: |
Name |
|
Appearing for |
| |
Burke, Reinhard |
|
Appellant |
| |
Melville, J. Bruce |
|
Respondent |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Decision: |
Appeal by several owners from a compensation award made by the Expropriation Compensation Board pursuant to the Expropriation Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 125. The award resulted from a partial taking for road widening purposes from several residential properties. The Appellants alleged that the Board had erred in its calculation of injurious affection by relying on a post-taking sale of one of the subject properties. It was alleged that the effect of relying on this sale was to set-off general benefits against injurious affection. The Court agreed and held that general benefits cannot be set-off against injurious affection. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ExLaw citation: |
[1999] EXLAW 295 |
|
| Neutral citation: |
1999 BCCA 178 |
|
| Parallel citations: |
(1999) 86 ACWS (3d) 1078 |
| |
(1999) 121 BCAC 9 |
| |
[1999] BCJ No. 645 |
| |
(1999) 66 BCLR (3d) 61 |
| |
1999 CarswellBC 593 |
| |
(1999) 170 DLR (4th) 608 |
| |
(1999) 66 LCR 161 |
| |
(1999) 198 WAC 9 |
|
|
|
|
|
