Expropriation Law Centre

Cases


Menu

Advertisement

Peterson Stark Scott

Advertisement


Free Case Law
[Back] DECISION DIGEST  
Record no. 303
Case name: Osoyoos Indian Band v. Oliver (Town)
Date: 1999-05-04
Jurisdiction: Canada - British Columbia
Court: Court of Appeal
Registry: [Subscribers only]
File: [Subscribers only]
Order no.: [Subscribers only]
Parties: Name   Appearing as
  Osoyoos Indian Band   Appellant
  British Columbia   Respondent
  Oliver (Town)   Respondent
Before: Decision maker Designation
Lambert, John Douglas J.A.
  Newbury, Mary V. J.A.
  Prowse, Jo-Ann E. J.A.
Lawyers: Name   Appearing for
  Woodward, John E. (Jack)   Appellant
  Buholzer, William   Respondent
  Gordon, Hunter W.   Respondent
Experts:  
Taking type/date: [Subscribers only]
Case elements: [Subscribers only]
Decision: Appeal from a stated case in a property taxation matter under the Indian Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-5. At issue was whether a right of way granted to the Province of British Columbia was in the nature of a fee simple interest or a lesser interest in land similar to an easement. The right of way extended through an Indian Reserve and had been granted in 1957 pursuant to the expropriation provisions of the Indian Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 149, and the Water Act, R.S.B.C. 1948, c. 361, for purposes of a concrete irrigation canal. The 1957 Order in Council authorizing the grant of the right of way did not clearly state the nature of the interest. However, if the interest was an easement then the land was still part of the reserve and the interest and improvements constructed on the right of way were therefore taxable. If the interest was a fee simple interest, then the land was no longer part of the reserve and not subject to the Band's taxation by-laws.

The court held (Lambert, J.A. dissenting) that the Province had acquired a fee simple interest in the right of way and the land was no longer part of the reserve. The decision contains a discussion of the expropriation procedures found in the Indian Act and whether there is a distinction between interests in land which may be acquired by expropriation and those which may be acquired under the surrender provisions of the Act.
Comment: [Subscribers only]
Statute references: [Subscribers only]
Case references: [Subscribers only]
Related decisions:      
  Earlier
  [1997] EXLAW 28 B.C. S.C. 1997-04-07
  Later
  [2001] EXLAW 342 S.C.C. 2001-12-07
Neutral citation: 1999 BCCA 297
ExLaw citation: [1999] EXLAW 303
Parallel citations: (1999) 88 A.C.W.S. (3d) 284
  (1999) 122 B.C.A.C. 220
  [1999] B.C.J. No. 997
  (1999) 68 B.C.L.R. (3d) 218
  [1999] 4 C.N.L.R. 91
  (1999) 172 D.L.R. (4th) 589
  (1999) 200 W.A.C. 220
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


© 2022 Dicta Legal Services Ltd.
Page last updated: May 8, 2021