The Queen v. Armour

The Queen v. Armour

Because the Exchequer Court judge heard the witnesses and made credibility and valuation findings that were not shown to be clearly erroneous on the record, the Supreme Court (majority) affirmed the Exchequer Court's award and dismissed the Crown's appeal.

Citation
(1899) 31 SCR 499
Parties
Appellant (plaintiff): The Queen (on the Information of the Attorney General for the Dominion of Canada); Respondent (defendant): John Douglas Armour; Respondent (defendant): The Toronto General Trusts Company; Respondent (defendant/tenant): Henry Cox
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 October 1899
Procedural Posture
Exchequer Appeal (expropriation/compensation) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Exchequer Court Judgment (judgment Delivered Oct 3, 1899)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Compensation, Assessment of Damages, Vesting of Land, Expropriation, Valuation, Appellate Review
Source Language
English
Eminent Domain Property Law Civil Procedure Administrative Law Compensation Assessment of Damages Vesting of Land Expropriation +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen (on the Information of the Attorney General for the Dominion of Canada)

Appellant (plaintiff)

John Douglas Armour

Respondent (defendant)

The Toronto General Trusts Company

Respondent (defendant)

Henry Cox

Respondent (defendant/tenant)

Procedural Posture

Exchequer Appeal (expropriation/compensation) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Exchequer Court Judgment (judgment Delivered Oct 3, 1899)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Exchequer Court's award of damages was excessive
  2. 2 Whether the Crown's tender of $6,860 constituted sufficient compensation for land taken and injurious affection
  3. 3 Whether appellate court should disturb trial judge's factual findings and valuation based on witnesses' credibility

Ratio Decidendi

Because the Exchequer Court judge heard the witnesses and made credibility and valuation findings that were not shown to be clearly erroneous on the record, the Supreme Court (majority) affirmed the Exchequer Court's award and dismissed the Crown's appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Declaration that the specified lands are vested in Her Majesty for the purposes of the Trent Valley Canal
  • Payment of $14,158 to John Douglas Armour as compensation with interest at 6% per annum from May 8, 1896