Cunard v. The King

Cunard v. The King

By majority the Court held that owners were not entitled to compensation reflecting speculative enhanced value from erecting wharves or the expectation of obtaining a licence to obstruct navigation; the $10,000 tendered by the Crown was sufficient and the Exchequer Court's judgment was affirmed. The validity of the Crown grant without clear statutory authority was treated as doubtful by the majority (left as quære), while one judge (Duff J.) dissented, finding the grant valid and preferring remittal for reassessment of compensation.

Citation
(1910) 43 SCR 88
Parties
Appellants (defendants): William Samuel Cunard and Others; Respondent (plaintiff): His Majesty The King
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 February 1910
Procedural Posture
Expropriation (eminent Domain) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Exchequer Court of Canada
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Exchequer Court affirmed.
Legal Topics
Crown Grant, Compensation Valuation, Navigable Waters, Licensing for Wharves/piers, Expectation of Enhanced Value
Source Language
English
Expropriation Property Law Maritime Law Administrative Law Public Law Crown Grant Compensation Valuation Navigable Waters +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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Samuel Cunard and Others

Appellants (defendants)

His Majesty The King

Respondent (plaintiff)

Procedural Posture

Expropriation (eminent Domain) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Exchequer Court of Canada

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether owners are entitled to compensation based on enhanced value from erecting wharves/piers and the expectation of a Crown/Dominion licence
  2. 2 Whether a Crown grant of water lots without explicit provincial statutory authority is valid
  3. 3 Whether $10,000 tendered by the Crown was adequate compensation

Ratio Decidendi

By majority the Court held that owners were not entitled to compensation reflecting speculative enhanced value from erecting wharves or the expectation of obtaining a licence to obstruct navigation; the $10,000 tendered by the Crown was sufficient and the Exchequer Court's judgment was affirmed. The validity of the Crown grant without clear statutory authority was treated as doubtful by the majority (left as quære), while one judge (Duff J.) dissented, finding the grant valid and preferring remittal for reassessment of compensation.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Exchequer Court affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment of the Exchequer Court (12 Ex. C.R. 414) affirmed