Aster Corporation v. Attorney General (Quebec) et al.
- Citation
- [1977] 1 SCR 40
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 2 February 1977
- Posture
- Expropriation / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Quebec
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 2 February 1977
- Posture
- Expropriation / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Quebec
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Public Service Board was not in error in ruling that it had to accept each of the four successive expropriations as valid for the purpose of fixing indemnity, and there was no reason for appellate intervention; therefore the appeal was dismissed.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs
Orders
- Appeal dismissed with costs.
- Judgment of the Court of Appeal for Quebec and the Superior Court homologating the Public Service Board decision affirmed.
02
Material facts
Parties
Aster Corporation
Appellant Counsel: Clermont Vermette, Q.C.; J.P. St-OngeAttorney General of the Province of Quebec
Respondent Counsel: Gustave Monette, Q.C.; Gérard DuguayMinister of Roads of the Province of Quebec
Respondent Counsel: Gustave Monette, Q.C.; Gérard DuguayQuebec Autoroutes Authority
Respondent Counsel: Gustave Monette, Q.C.; Gérard Duguay03
Procedural history
Posture
Expropriation / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Quebec
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether successive expropriations must be treated as valid for the purpose of fixing indemnity
- 02
Whether the Public Service Board erred in fixing the indemnity based on those expropriations
- 03
Whether appellate intervention was warranted
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Appellant argued that the Public Service Board erred in treating each of the four successive expropriations as valid when fixing indemnity and that the indemnity should be revisited by the courts.
- Respondent
- Respondents argued the Public Service Board correctly treated the successive expropriations as valid and fixed indemnity accordingly and that there was no basis for appellate intervention.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Decision of the Public Service Board affirmed by the Superior Court and Court of Appeal; upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada
An administrative tribunal fixing indemnity must take valid expropriations into account when determining compensation
- 02
Supreme Court of Canada judgment in this appeal
Appellate courts should not intervene in administrative determinations absent legal error or compelling reason
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Public Service Board was not in error in ruling that it had to accept each of the four successive expropriations as valid for the purpose of fixing indemnity, and there was no reason for appellate intervention; therefore the appeal was dismissed.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs
- Appeal dismissed with costs.
- Judgment of the Court of Appeal for Quebec and the Superior Court homologating the Public Service Board decision affirmed.
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 2 February 1977
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Supreme Court of Canada
Judgment· 2 February 1977
Aster Corporation v. Attorney General (Quebec) et al. Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1977-02-02 Report [1977] 1 SCR 40 Judges Judson, Wilfred; Pigeon, Louis-Philippe; Dickson, Robert George Brian; Beetz, Jean; de Grandpré, Louis-Philippe On appeal from Quebec Subjects Expropriation Decision Content Supreme Court of Canada Aster Corporation v. Attorney General (Quebec) et al., [1977] 1 S.C.R. 40 Date: 1977-02-02 Aster Corporation Appellant; and Attorney General of the Province of Quebec, Minister of Roads of the Province of Quebec and Quebec Autoroutes Authority Respondents. 1977: February 2. Present: Judson, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz and de Grandpré JJ.
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR QUEBEC Expropriation—Validity of successive expropriations—No reason to intervene in the indemnity fixed by the Public Service Board. APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Appeal for Quebec, affirming a judgment of the Superior Court homologating a decision of the Public Service Board. Appeal dismissed. Clermont Vermette, Q.C., and J.P. St-Onge, for the appellant. Gustave Monette, Q.C., and Gérard Duguay, for the respondents. The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by JUDSON J.—It will not be necessary to hear you, Mr. Monette and Mr. Duguay. We are all of the opinion that the Public Service Board was not in error in ruling that, with respect to the judgment of the Superior Court referring the case to it for the indemnity to be fixed, it had to take as valid each of the four successive expropriations made by respondents. On the other questions, we agree with the Court of Appeal in deciding that there is no reason to intervene. The appeal is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed with costs. Solicitors for the appellant: Riel, Vermette & Ryan, Montreal. Solicitors for the respondents: Monette, Clerk, Michaud, Barakett, Lévesque & Guérette, Montréal.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.