Laidlaw v. Metro Toronto

Laidlaw v. Metro Toronto

The Court held that the unpaid portion of the cost of an improvement that is not reflected (or not fully reflected) in market value is a reasonable cost and a natural consequence of expropriation recoverable under s.18(1); alternatively, s.18(1)(a)(ii) must be read to permit compensation for improvements whose subjective value to the owner is not reflected (or only partially reflected) in market value, so the appellant was entitled to the $16,000 difference (and related sums).

Citation
[1978] 2 SCR 736
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Marion Viola Laidlaw; Respondent / Defendant: The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 May 1978
Procedural Posture
Expropriation Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada / On Appeal From the Court of Appeal for Ontario (appeal From Divisional Court Decision on Land Compensation Board Award)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Court of Appeal judgment annulled; Divisional Court judgment restored
Legal Topics
Compensation, Market Value, Disturbance, Unmarketable Improvements, Use of Legislative History/mischief Rule
Source Language
English
Expropriation Property Law Statutory Interpretation Compensation Market Value Disturbance Unmarketable Improvements Use of Legislative History/mischief Rule

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marion Viola Laidlaw

Appellant / Plaintiff

The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Expropriation Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada / On Appeal From the Court of Appeal for Ontario (appeal From Divisional Court Decision on Land Compensation Board Award)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.18(1)(a)(ii) of The Expropriation Act permits recovery of the difference between the cost of an improvement and the increase in market value when the improvement increases market value only partially
  2. 2 Whether the general language of s.18(1) (payment of reasonable costs that are natural and reasonable consequences of expropriation) permits recovery of that difference

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the unpaid portion of the cost of an improvement that is not reflected (or not fully reflected) in market value is a reasonable cost and a natural consequence of expropriation recoverable under s.18(1); alternatively, s.18(1)(a)(ii) must be read to permit compensation for improvements whose subjective value to the owner is not reflected (or only partially reflected) in market value, so the appellant was entitled to the $16,000 difference (and related sums).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Court of Appeal judgment annulled; Divisional Court judgment restored

Orders

  • Restore Divisional Court judgment awarding appellant $108,751.50
  • Interest at 6% from August 3, 1973 on the sum of $87,500