Expropriation Law Centre

Cases


Menu

Advertisement

Peterson Stark Scott

Advertisement


Free Case Law
[Back] DECISION DIGEST  
Record no. 362
Case name: British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Perry Ridge Water Users Association
Date: 2000-06-16
Jurisdiction: Canada - British Columbia
Court: Supreme Court
Registry: [Subscribers only]
File: [Subscribers only]
Order no.: [Subscribers only]
Parties: Name   Appearing as
  British Columbia (Attorney General)   Plaintiff
  British Columbia (Minister of Forests)   Plaintiff
  Blackie, Sandy   Defendant
  Doe, Jane   Defendant
  Doe, John   Defendant
  Greengrass, Austin   Defendant
  Nixon, Frank   Defendant
  Perry Ridge Water Users Association   Defendant
  Retterath, Guenther   Defendant
  Stevenson, Pam   Defendant
Before: Decision maker Designation
McEwan, T. Mark J.
Lawyers: Name   Appearing for
  Hunter, John J.L.   Plaintiff
  McGee, Kenyon   Defendant
  Melville, J. Bruce   Defendant
Experts:  
Taking type/date: [Subscribers only]
Case elements: [Subscribers only]
Decision: Two applications arising out of a trespass action. The first application raised an issue as to validity of a defective writ. The writ was found to be an irregularity but nevertheless curable by amendment.

The second application dealt with the effect of the purported expropriation of a road by the Crown in 1984 under the Forest Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 140. At issue was whether the expropriation was valid and if so, whether the land on which a trespass was alleged to have occurred was the land which had been expropriated. The court found that the act of entering and taking possession by the Crown under the provisions of the Forest Act then in effect was sufficient to give the Crown the right to construct a road on the land entered upon although the Court declined to state the nature of the interest which had been acquired by the Crown. The court also held that the area of land taken was the same land on which the trespasses were alleged to have taken place.
Comment: [Subscribers only]
Statute references: [Subscribers only]
Case references: [Subscribers only]
Related decisions:      
  Earlier
 
  Later
  [2000] EXLAW 333 B.C. S.C. 2000-11-28
  [2001] EXLAW 346 B.C. C.A. 2001-03-16
  [2003] EXLAW 315 B.C. C.A. 2003-05-09
Neutral citation: 2000 BCSC 940
ExLaw citation: [2000] EXLAW 316
Parallel citations: (2000) 97 A.C.W.S. (3d) 934
  [2000] B.C.J. No. 1226
  (2000) 48 C.P.C. (4th) 380
  (2000) 70 L.C.R. 110
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