link to Expropriation Law Centre home page

Cases



Menu

Advertisement

Peterson Stark Scott

Advertisement


Free Case Law
[Back] DECISION DIGEST  
Record no. 311
Case name: Sutherland v. Langley (Township)
Date: 1999-09-23
Jurisdiction: Canada - British Columbia
Court: Expropriation Compensation Board
Release registry: [Subscribers only]
Court file: [Subscribers only]
Order no.: [Subscribers only]
Parties: Name   Appearing as
  Sutherland, Gay Ann   Claimant
  Langley (Township)   Authority
Before: Decision maker Designation
Eames, Lesley Member
  Guthrie, Art Member
  Ross, Susan E. Member
Lawyers: Name   Appearing for
  Alexander, L. John   Claimant
  Goulden, James H.   Authority
Experts: Name Occupation Appearing for
  Bowins, Donald K. Engineer Claimant
  Davies, Brian K. Appraiser Claimant
  Dyer, Slade Elgin Planner Claimant
  Hooker, Dale C. Appraiser Authority
Taking type: [Subscribers only]
Valuation date: [Subscribers only]
Case elements: [Subscribers only]
Decision: Compensation hearing pursuant to the Expropriation Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 125. Partial taking of a fee simple interest for a road project. The land was acquired by the Authority pursuant to a s. 3 agreement. The property was a small rural acreage located in a neighbourhood undergoing rapid development. The property contained a house occupied by a tenant and two outbuildings used by the Claimant and her husband. The taking caused a severance of the remainder and each of the buildings were located in part or entirely on the land taken. Claims were advanced for market value, injurious affection and disturbance damages. The Board rejected the Development Approach in favour of the Direct Comparison Approach for purposes of determining market value of the land taken. Market value and injurious affection were determined simultaneously using the Before and After method. Disturbance damages were awarded for the cost of installing electrical service and modifications to one of the remaining outbuildings. Other disturbance claims for site servicing of the remainder, line of credit costs and costs of Supreme Court proceedings were rejected.
Comment: [Subscribers only]
Statute references: [Subscribers only]
Case references: [Subscribers only]
Related decisions:      
  Earlier
  [1997] EXLAW 237 B.C. S.C. 1997-07-18
  [1998] EXLAW 259 B.C. C.A. 1998-03-25
  Later
 
Neutral citation: N/A
ExLaw citation: [1999] EXLAW 310
Parallel citations: (1999) 68 L.C.R. 49
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: April 21, 2024