Supreme Court docket of Canada – 39594

Supreme Court docket of Canada – 39594

Annapolis Group Inc. v. Halifax Regional Municipality

    • Determination

 

    • Date: October 21, 2022

 

    • Impartial Quotation: 2022 SCC 36

 

    • Breakdown of the choice:
        • Majority: Justices Côté and Brown allowed the attraction (Chief Justice Wagner and Justices Moldaver and Rowe agreed)

       

        • Dissenting: Justices Kasirer and Jamal would have dismissed the attraction, discovering that Annapolis had no actual probability of proving its declare based mostly on the authorized necessities set out within the Canadian Pacific Railway Co. case (Justices Karakatsanis and Martin agreed)

       

       

 

    • On attraction from the Court docket of Attraction of Nova Scotia

 

    • Case info (39594)

 

    • Webcast of listening to

 

    • Decrease courtroom rulings:

 

The Supreme Court docket guidelines {that a} personal Halifax land developer can take the regional municipality to courtroom for its plan to expropriate its land.

The Annapolis Group began shopping for lands within the Halifax space within the Nineteen Fifties. Over time, it acquired 965 acres of land, which the corporate deliberate to develop and promote. In 2006, Halifax adopted a 25-year Regional Municipality Planning Technique for land growth. It included the Annapolis lands.

The planning technique signifies a few of these lands could be zoned for a public park with the remainder designated for “serviced growth”, akin to residential neighbourhoods. For serviced growth to happen, Halifax should undertake a decision authorizing a “secondary planning course of” and make an modification to the land use by-law.

Annapolis made a number of makes an attempt to develop the lands, beginning in 2007, with no success. In 2016, Halifax in the end adopted a decision refusing to provoke the secondary planning course of.

Annapolis responded by submitting a lawsuit towards Halifax within the Supreme Court docket of Nova Scotia. It claimed, amongst different issues, that Halifax had primarily expropriated personal property for a public park, which amounted to a “constructive taking”. In 2019, Halifax requested the courtroom for abstract judgment to dismiss the constructive taking declare from the lawsuit. Abstract judgment is a process that permits a celebration in a lawsuit to ask the courtroom to resolve an problem with no full trial.

In response, Annapolis argued that its declare of constructive taking raised points that required a trial. The decide agreed however Halifax appealed that determination to the Nova Scotia Court docket of Attraction. Primarily based on the Supreme Court docket of Canada’s 2006 ruling in Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Vancouver (Metropolis), the Court docket of Attraction concluded that Annapolis had no cheap probability of success. Annapolis then appealed to the Supreme Court docket of Canada.

The Supreme Court docket has allowed Annapolis’s declare of constructive taking to proceed to trial.

The declare raises disputed points of undeniable fact that have to be determined at trial.

Writing for a majority of the judges of the Supreme Court docket, Justices Suzanne Côté and Russell Brown discovered that Annapolis’ declare of constructive taking raises disputed problems with undeniable fact that have to be determined at trial, based mostly on the constructive taking take a look at set out within the Canadian Pacific Railway Co. case.

There are two elements to the take a look at for establishing a constructive taking. First, the take a look at should present the federal government has acquired a useful curiosity in the property or flowing from the property. A useful curiosity is an benefit, akin to when personal property is loved as a public useful resource. Second, the take a look at requires exhibiting the proposed regulatory measures would take away all cheap makes use of of the personal property.

The Nova Scotia Court docket of Attraction had interpreted the primary a part of the take a look at as requiring Annapolis to indicate that Halifax had really taken possession of the lands. Nonetheless, Justices Côté and Brown wrote, “what have to be proven by the property proprietor can fall in need of an precise acquisition by the state.” The bulk stated the Court docket of Attraction was additionally improper in holding that Halifax’s intention is irrelevant to making use of the second a part of the take a look at.

Nearly all of the Supreme Court docket famous, “Annapolis is entitled to adduce proof at trial to indicate that, by holding Annapolis’ land out as a public park, Halifax has acquired a useful curiosity therein; and that, as a result of Halifax is unlikely to ever carry zoning restrictions constraining the event of Annapolis’ land, Annapolis has misplaced all cheap makes use of of its property”. Annapolis may adduce proof of Halifax’s intention in not doing so, the bulk stated.

Circumstances in Transient are ready by communications workers of the Supreme Court docket of Canada to assist the general public higher perceive Court docket selections. They don’t type a part of the Court docket’s causes for judgment and are usually not to be used in authorized proceedings.

Date modified:

 

Leave a Reply