Canada Judgment

Supreme Court of Canada

Brown v. Edmonton (City of)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Appellate Division correctly dismissed the appeal because the Public Utilities Board's valuation and the $10,000 compensation award were supported by the evidence and within the Board's discretion, and thus required no intervention by the courts.

Court disposition

Appeal dismissed. No costs payable by either party.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • No costs payable by either party.

02

Material facts

Parties

James Munro Brown

Appellant Counsel: J.D. Richard, Q.C.

The City of Edmonton

Respondent Counsel: H.F. Wilson

Amounts and remedies

  • Compensation Award: CAD 10,000

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Expropriation Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of Alberta, Appellate Division

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Appellant argued the compensation awarded by the Public Utilities Board ($10,000) was inadequate and that the Board erred in its valuation of the expropriated residential property.
Respondent
Respondent maintained the Board's valuation was correct, supported by the evidence, and within the Board's discretion, and that the Appellate Division properly dismissed the appellant's challenge.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Public Utilities Board decision and affirmed by Supreme Court of Canada in Brown v. Edmonton (1978)

    Compensation for expropriation is determined by valuation of the property at the relevant date and must be supported by evidence.

  2. 02

    Supreme Court of Canada decision in Brown v. Edmonton (1978)

    An appellate court will not overturn administrative valuation findings that are supported by evidence and within the decision‑maker's discretion.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Appellate Division correctly dismissed the appeal because the Public Utilities Board's valuation and the $10,000 compensation award were supported by the evidence and within the Board's discretion, and thus required no intervention by the courts.

Court disposition

Appeal dismissed. No costs payable by either party.

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • No costs payable by either party.

Source and reliance status

Supreme Court of Canada · 1 December 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.

Source document

Supreme Court of Canada

Judgment· 1 December 1977

[1978] 1 SCR 1020

Brown v. Edmonton (City of) Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1977-12-01 Report [1978] 1 SCR 1020 Judges Martland, Ronald; Spence, Wishart Flett; Beetz, Jean; Estey, Willard Zebedee; Pratte, Yves On appeal from Alberta Subjects Expropriation Decision Content Supreme Court of Canada Brown v. Edmonton (City of), [1978] 1 S.C.R. 1020 Date: 1977-12-01 James Munro Brown Appellant; and The City of Edmonton Respondent. 1977: December 1. Present: Martland, Spence, Beetz, Estey and Pratte JJ. ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ALBERTA, APPELLATE DIVISION Expropriation—Valuation—Residential property taken by municipality—Determination of compensation award—Applicable principles. APPEAL from an order of the Supreme Court of Alberta, Appellate Division, dismissing the appellant’s appeal from an order of the Public Utilities Board for the Province of Alberta, wherein the Board ordered the City of Edmonton to pay the appellant $10,000 in respect to certain property expropriated by the City. Appeal dismissed. J.D. Richard, Q.C., for the appellant. H.F. Wilson, for the respondent. The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by MARTLAND J.—We are all of the opinion that the Appellate Division decided properly to dismiss the appellant’s appeal from the decision of the Public Utilities Board. The appeal is dismissed. There will be no costs payable by either party. Judgment accordingly. Solicitors for the appellant: Gowling & Henderson, Ottawa. Solicitor for the respondent: H.F. Wilson, Edmonton.

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

No structured authorities are available for this judgment.

Refer to the full judgment and official source for citations that have not yet been extracted.

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.