Walters v. Essex County Board of Education

Walters v. Essex County Board of Education

The approving authority fulfilled its duty by having the inquiry officer's report before it and "considering" it; s.8(1) requires consideration but does not convert the approving body into an appellate or quasi-judicial tribunal bound to adopt the inquiry officer's conclusions or to decide in public or to hold...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1974] SCR 481
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Emile Walters; Plaintiff/appellant: Louis Walters; Plaintiff/appellant: Albert Walters; Defendant/respondent: Essex County Board of Education
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 June 1973
Procedural Posture
Expropriation; Declaratory Action to Annul Expropriation / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario; Appeal Dismissed (29 Jun 1973)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Duty of Approving Authority to Consider Inquiry Report, Procedural Fairness / Audi Alteram Partem, Statutory Interpretation of Approving Function, Duty to Give Notice or Further Hearing, Official Plan Compliance
Source Language
english
Expropriation Administrative Law Property Law Planning Law Duty of Approving Authority to Consider Inquiry Report Procedural Fairness / Audi Alteram Partem Statutory Interpretation of Approving Function Duty to Give Notice or Further Hearing +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Emile Walters

Plaintiff/appellant

Louis Walters

Plaintiff/appellant

Albert Walters

Plaintiff/appellant

Essex County Board of Education

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Expropriation; Declaratory Action to Annul Expropriation / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario; Appeal Dismissed (29 Jun 1973)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether approving authority satisfied duty to "consider" inquiry officer's report under s.8(1) of The Expropriations Act
  2. 2 Whether approving authority was required to act on the report at a public meeting
  3. 3 Whether presence of new material before the Board imposed a duty to give owners an opportunity to make further representations

Ratio Decidendi

The approving authority fulfilled its duty by having the inquiry officer's report before it and "considering" it; s.8(1) requires consideration but does not convert the approving body into an appellate or quasi-judicial tribunal bound to adopt the inquiry officer's conclusions or to decide in public or to hold further hearings absent bad faith or statutory requirement; therefore the Board's approval was lawful and not subject to judicial reversal on the merits.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • No order as to costs in this Court