Thunderbird Entertainment Ltd. v. Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority

Thunderbird Entertainment Ltd. v. Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority

The appeal is dismissed; the trial judge properly accepted and relied on the experts' before-and-after valuation which showed a disproportionate reduction in net developable land in the rear portion caused by the expropriation and the binding parking obligation, s.40(1)(b) requires compensation for such reduction...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2012 BCCA 294
Parties
Respondent (plaintiff): Thunderbird Entertainment Ltd.; Appellant (defendant): Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority
Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Expropriation (compensation) / Appeal From Trial Judgment (court of Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Injurious Affection, Compensation Assessment, Before and After Valuation Method, Parking Obligations and Lease Impact, Expert Evidence and Standard of Review
Source Language
english
Property Law Expropriation Law Administrative Law Real Estate Valuation Injurious Affection Compensation Assessment Before and After Valuation Method Parking Obligations and Lease Impact +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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thunderbird Entertainment Ltd.

Respondent (plaintiff)

Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority

Appellant (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Expropriation (compensation) / Appeal From Trial Judgment (court of Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the remainder of the expropriated parcel suffered injurious affection beyond the value of land taken
  2. 2 Whether the 2005 covenant and development permit setback were causally connected to the expropriation and thus excluded from the 'before' valuation
  3. 3 Whether expert assumptions (notably a 1,500 parking stall requirement and a .33 site coverage ratio) were reasonable and supported injurious affection finding

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed; the trial judge properly accepted and relied on the experts' before-and-after valuation which showed a disproportionate reduction in net developable land in the rear portion caused by the expropriation and the binding parking obligation, s.40(1)(b) requires compensation for such reduction separate from payment for land taken, and the trial judge's factual findings and valuation assumptions were supported by evidence and not palpably wrong.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and judgment below upheld
  • Trial judge's valuation of land taken fixed at CAD 635000