| Case name: |
Telep v. Maple Ridge (District) |
|
|
|
| Jurisdiction: |
Canada - British Columbia |
|
| Court: |
Expropriation Compensation Board |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Parties: |
Name |
|
Appearing as |
| |
Owen, Mary |
|
Claimant |
| |
Telep, Bernice Irene |
|
Claimant |
| |
Telep, David |
|
Claimant |
| |
Telep, John |
|
Claimant |
| |
Telep, Michael |
|
Claimant |
| |
Telep, Peter |
|
Claimant |
| |
Telep, Stephen Joseph |
|
Claimant |
| |
Maple Ridge (District) |
|
Respondent |
| |
School District No. 42 (Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows) |
|
Respondent |
|
| Before: |
Decision maker |
Designation |
|
Clark, David J. |
Member |
| |
Coates, John A. |
Member |
| |
Grover, Michael R. |
Member |
|
| Lawyers: |
Name |
|
Appearing for |
| |
Macintosh, George K. |
|
Claimant |
| |
Clemens, Murray A. |
|
Respondent |
| |
Williamson, Barry S. |
|
Respondent |
|
| Experts: |
Name |
Occupation |
Appearing for |
| |
Hume, Peter |
Planner |
Claimant |
| |
Laird, David |
Engineer |
Claimant |
| |
Pavlakovic, Mario |
Appraiser |
Claimant |
| |
Cavazzi, David C. |
Appraiser |
Respondent |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Decision: |
Application by the Claimants to the British Columbia Expropriation Compensation Board for determination of compensation pursuant to the Expropriation Act, S.B.C. 1987, c. 23. These applications resulted from three separate expropriations conducted by two expropriating authorities. The subject properties were located in the District of Maple Ridge. They were adjacent to each other and had similar characteristics. The Claimants sought to have compensation determined by the Board at a single hearing. The Board ordered that the claims be heard consecutively.
A preliminary issue arose from an agreement between some of the Claimants and Maple Ridge whereby a parcel of land owned by Maple Ridge was transferred to the Claimants in exchange for one of the parcels expropriated pursuant to s. 42 of the Act. The Board held that it had jurisdiction to determine whether the exchange partially or completely satisfied one of the claims for compensation.
The Board awarded $1,021,650 compensation for market value of the first parcel, $505,000 for market value of the second parcel and $992,000 for market value of the third parcel. The substituted land was valued at $180,000 which was applied as part of the advance payment toward the third parcel. The Claimants were also awarded regular and additional interest and costs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Related decisions: |
|
|
|
| |
Earlier |
| |
| |
Later |
| |
|
|
|
| ExLaw citation: |
[1992] EXLAW 40 |
|
| Parallel citations: |
(1992) 48 L.C.R. 83 |
|
|
|
