Alliance Pipeline Ltd. v. Fast

Alliance Pipeline Ltd. v. Fast

The Court held that the Committee did not err in relying on evidence of settlement levels in the area to fix an advance because s.97 contemplates factors beyond simple en bloc market value and no contrary evidence on value or specific property characteristics was presented; absence of evidence on...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2003 FCT 642
Parties
Appellant: Alliance Pipeline Ltd.; Respondent: Brian Peter Fast; Respondent: Teresa Georgina Fast
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Pipeline Arbitration Committee Order / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Order and Order)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed in part and allowed in part: the Court varied the Committee's order by deleting the direction that the advance be paid in periodic increments; in all other respects the appeal was dismissed and costs awarded to the respondents.
Legal Topics
Advance Compensation, Easement Acquisition, Right of Entry, Valuation Methods, En Bloc Value, Pattern of Dealings, National Energy Board Act Interpretation, Applicability of S.98 to Advances
Source Language
english
Administrative Law Energy Law Property Law Arbitration Statutory Interpretation Pipeline Regulation Advance Compensation Easement Acquisition +6 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alliance Pipeline Ltd.

Appellant

Brian Peter Fast

Respondent

Teresa Georgina Fast

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Pipeline Arbitration Committee Order / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Order and Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Committee erred by relying on settlement patterns rather than market value/highest and best use under s.97 NEBA
  2. 2 Whether the Committee erred by failing to consider residual and reversionary value under s.97(1)(i) NEBA
  3. 3 Whether the Committee erred in applying s.98 NEBA (forms of payment) to an advance determined under s.105 NEBA

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the Committee did not err in relying on evidence of settlement levels in the area to fix an advance because s.97 contemplates factors beyond simple en bloc market value and no contrary evidence on value or specific property characteristics was presented; absence of evidence on residual/reversionary value precluded any error for omission; however s.98 governs awards of compensation under s.90 and does not apply to arbitration of advances under s.105, so the Committee's direction that the advance be paid in periodic increments was varied and deleted.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed in part and allowed in part: the Court varied the Committee's order by deleting the direction that the advance be paid in periodic increments; in all other respects the appeal was dismissed and costs awarded to the respondents.

Orders

  • The Order of the Committee is varied by deleting the direction that the advance payment be made in such periodic increments as requested by the respondents.
  • In all other respects, the appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondents.