Fraser v. The Queen

Fraser v. The Queen

Majority held that compensation must reflect the market value of the rock in situ and the land's special adaptability as of the date of expropriation; the owner was entitled to fair market compensation for the quantity of rock taken (measured by what a willing purchaser would pay), excluding any enhancement attributable solely to the Crown's execution of its scheme; value of special adaptability limited to the acreage retained by the Crown; no separate award for compulsory taking.

Citation
[1963] SCR 455
Parties
Defendant/appellant: Alistair Fraser; Plaintiff/respondent: Her Majesty The Queen on the information of the Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 October 1963
Procedural Posture
Expropriation — Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Exchequer Court of Canada / Appeal and Cross Appeal (final Adjudication)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed (majority). Judgment varied in favour of appellant (award increased). Dissent by Judson J.
Legal Topics
Compensation, Valuation Date, Special Adaptability, Market Value, Revesting, Necessitous Purchaser
Source Language
English
Expropriation Property Administrative Law Compensation Valuation Date Special Adaptability Market Value Revesting +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alistair Fraser

Defendant/appellant

Her Majesty The Queen on the information of the Deputy Attorney General of Canada

Plaintiff/respondent

Procedural Posture

Expropriation — Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Exchequer Court of Canada / Appeal and Cross Appeal (final Adjudication)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether compensation for expropriated land that is a source of building material must exclude value that exists only by reason of the acquiring authority's scheme
  2. 2 Whether a special adaptability value is payable where the acquiring authority is effectively the only purchaser
  3. 3 Proper date and basis for valuation (date of expropriation; value of rock in situ vs. bare land)

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held that compensation must reflect the market value of the rock in situ and the land's special adaptability as of the date of expropriation; the owner was entitled to fair market compensation for the quantity of rock taken (measured by what a willing purchaser would pay), excluding any enhancement attributable solely to the Crown's execution of its scheme; value of special adaptability limited to the acreage retained by the Crown; no separate award for compulsory taking.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed (majority). Judgment varied in favour of appellant (award increased). Dissent by Judson J.

Orders

  • Appellant awarded $360,640 compensation
  • Interest at 5% per annum: on $365,505 from July 9, 1952 to May 9, 1955, and on $360,640 from May 9, 1955 to date of judgment