link to Expropriation Law Centre home page

Cases



Menu
Home
News
Events
Statutes
Cases
Articles
Reviews
Photos
Statistics
Publications
Professional Directory
Links

Advertisement

Peterson Stark Scott

Advertisement


Free Case Law
[Back] DECISION DIGEST  
Record no. 732
Case name: Mannix v. Alberta (Minister of Environment)
Date: 1984-10-24
Jurisdiction: Canada - Alberta
Court: Court of Appeal
Release registry: [Subscribers only]
Court file: [Subscribers only]
Order no.: [Subscribers only]
Parties: Name   Appearing as
  Mannix, Frederick Charles   Appellant
  Alberta (Minister of Environment)   Respondent
Decision makers: Name Designation
Haddad, William Joseph J.A.
  Lieberman, Samuel Sereth J.A.
  Stevenson, William Alexander J.A.
Lawyers: Name   Appearing for
  Samuelson, D.G.   Appellant
  Tavender, E. David D.   Appellant
  Mason, D. Blair   Respondent
  Prentice, Peter Eric James   Respondent
Experts: Name Occupation Appearing for
  Hopper, Alan Planner Appellant
  Hay, Allister M. Planner Respondent
  Shaske, Edward J. Appraiser Respondent
Taking type: [Subscribers only]
Valuation date: [Subscribers only]
Case elements: [Subscribers only]
Decision: Appeal by an owner from a compensation award for the partial expropriation of approximately 300 ac. of land. The Appellant's land prior to expropriation was in excess of 1,000 ac. The expropriation was carried out by the Province of Alberta pursuant to the Expropriation Act, S.A. 1974, c. 27, for the expansion of Fish Creek Provincial Park located within the City of Calgary. At trial, the Appellant had been awarded total compensation of $7,141,068. Of this amount, $6,183,000 had been allowed for market value of the land taken, $340,308 for injurious affection and $618,300 for unusual circumstances. On appeal, the Appellant raised a number of issues. A challenge to the award for market value of the taking was dismissed on conclusion of the hearing and the present reasons for decision were released shortly thereafter. The court's decision on the remaining issues was reserved.
Comment: [Subscribers only]
Statute references: [Subscribers only]
Case references: [Subscribers only]
ExLaw citation: [1984] EXLAW 2
Neutral citation: 1984 ABCA 288
Parallel citations: (1984) 28 A.C.W.S. (2d) 174
  [1984] A.J. No. 365
  (1984) 31 L.C.R. 299
Related decisions:      
  Earlier
  [1981] EXLAW 1 Alta. Q.B. 1981-01-16
  [1981] EXLAW 2 Alta. C.A. 1981-07-10
  [1983] EXLAW 3 Alta. Q.B. 1983-02-22
  Later
  [1984] EXLAW 1 Alta. C.A. 1984-12-12
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: September 7, 2024