Tabco Timber Limited v. The Queen

Tabco Timber Limited v. The Queen

Evidence of subsequent sales of comparable nearby property was admissible and should have been considered; exclusion of that evidence was erroneous and led to an undervaluation. Taking that evidence into account, the just compensation as at the date of expropriation was $40,000; the appeal is allowed and the trial judgment varied accordingly, with interest and costs as ordered.

Citation
[1971] SCR 361
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Tabco Timber Limited; Appellant/defendant: I.M. Sherwin Limited; Appellant/defendant: Kennedy Holdings Ltd.; Respondent/plaintiff: Her Majesty The Queen
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 October 1970
Procedural Posture
Expropriation / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Exchequer Court of Canada
Outcome
Appeal allowed; trial judgment varied.
Legal Topics
Compensation, Valuation, Admissibility of Subsequent Sales, Highest and Best Use
Source Language
English
Expropriation Property Law Evidence Compensation Valuation Admissibility of Subsequent Sales Highest and Best Use

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tabco Timber Limited

Appellant/defendant

I.M. Sherwin Limited

Appellant/defendant

Kennedy Holdings Ltd.

Appellant/defendant

Her Majesty The Queen

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Expropriation / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Exchequer Court of Canada

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sales of comparable property occurring after the expropriation date are admissible to establish value at the date of expropriation
  2. 2 Proper application of the rules for valuation in expropriation (Duthoit)
  3. 3 Whether exclusion of evidence resulted in undervaluation of the expropriated land

Ratio Decidendi

Evidence of subsequent sales of comparable nearby property was admissible and should have been considered; exclusion of that evidence was erroneous and led to an undervaluation. Taking that evidence into account, the just compensation as at the date of expropriation was $40,000; the appeal is allowed and the trial judgment varied accordingly, with interest and costs as ordered.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; trial judgment varied.

Orders

  • Declare $40,000 is the just compensation for the lands taken.
  • Increase the amount awarded to each appellant by one-third to reflect the corrected valuation.