The King v. Trudel

The King v. Trudel

When land is compulsorily acquired its compensation is the value to the owner at the date of taking, including present value of future advantages as of that date assessed by reference to a hypothetical open market; speculative or vague opinion evidence cannot substitute for market transactions or reliable comparables; applying these principles the trial award was excessive and must be reduced to reflect true owner‑value at the valuation date.

Citation
(1914) 49 SCR 501
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: His Majesty The King; Defendant/respondent: David Tancrède Trudel; Defendant/respondent: Arthur Paquin
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 March 1914
Procedural Posture
Expropriation Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Exchequer Court of Canada
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs; judgment of Exchequer Court altered and award reduced
Legal Topics
Compensation Valuation, Prospective Value, Market Value, Section 198 Railway Act, National Transcontinental Railway Act
Source Language
English
Expropriation Property Law Administrative Law Railway Law Compensation Valuation Prospective Value Market Value Section 198 Railway Act +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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

His Majesty The King

Plaintiff/appellant

David Tancrède Trudel

Defendant/respondent

Arthur Paquin

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Expropriation Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Exchequer Court of Canada

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper measure of compensation for land taken under s.198 of the Railway Act
  2. 2 Whether and how prospective potentialities of land are to be included in valuation
  3. 3 Appropriate valuation date

Ratio Decidendi

When land is compulsorily acquired its compensation is the value to the owner at the date of taking, including present value of future advantages as of that date assessed by reference to a hypothetical open market; speculative or vague opinion evidence cannot substitute for market transactions or reliable comparables; applying these principles the trial award was excessive and must be reduced to reflect true owner‑value at the valuation date.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs; judgment of Exchequer Court altered and award reduced

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Original award of $18,203.72 set aside and reduced to $6,686.40