Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College v. Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto

Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College v. Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto

The Court affirmed the Court of Appeal finding that the municipality took a permanent exclusive subsurface easement by agreement; compensation must be for the value of that easement plus any diminution in value of the remaining lands. The Court declined to interfere with the Court of Appeal's award of $143,500 (comprising $100,000 for the land interest, $8,500 additional maintenance during construction and $35,000 for long-term inconvenience and possible subfooting costs) and upheld the Court of Appeal's discretionary costs disposition.

Citation
[1968] SCR 198
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College; Respondent/contestant: The Corporation of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 January 1968
Procedural Posture
Expropriation / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; cross-appeal dismissed without costs.
Legal Topics
Compensation, Easement Vs Fee Simple, Valuation, Injurious Affection, Interest on Unpaid Compensation, Discretionary Costs
Source Language
English
Expropriation Property Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure (costs) Compensation Easement Vs Fee Simple Valuation Injurious Affection +2 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College

Appellant/claimant

The Corporation of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto

Respondent/contestant

Procedural Posture

Expropriation / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the interest taken was fee simple or a permanent subsurface easement
  2. 2 Proper measure of compensation for a permanent exclusive subsurface easement including diminution in value of remaining land
  3. 3 Whether the Court of Appeal's reduction of the arbitrator's award should be interfered with

Ratio Decidendi

The Court affirmed the Court of Appeal finding that the municipality took a permanent exclusive subsurface easement by agreement; compensation must be for the value of that easement plus any diminution in value of the remaining lands. The Court declined to interfere with the Court of Appeal's award of $143,500 (comprising $100,000 for the land interest, $8,500 additional maintenance during construction and $35,000 for long-term inconvenience and possible subfooting costs) and upheld the Court of Appeal's discretionary costs disposition.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; cross-appeal dismissed without costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Cross-appeal dismissed without costs