City of Halifax v. Bauditz

City of Halifax v. Bauditz

The Appeal Division's finding that the highest and best use of the land was for apartment development was supported by the evidence and the court properly exercised its statutory review under s.414; the fair market value to the owner was $117,000 and allowable preparatory expenses totalled $25,705.59, producing a corrected award of $142,705.59. The appeal was dismissed except for correcting the expenses figure.

Citation
[1971] SCR 170
Parties
Appellant/defendant: City of Halifax; Respondent/plaintiff: Horst Bauditz; Respondent/plaintiff: Horst Bauditz Limited; Respondent/plaintiff: James Langille
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 October 1970
Procedural Posture
Expropriation Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Appeal Division of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed except correction to expenses; award to respondents fixed at $142,705.59; costs awarded.
Legal Topics
Highest and Best Use, Market Value to Owner, Valuation Methodology, Allowable Expenses and Damages, Statutory Review of Valuation
Source Language
English
Expropriation Property Law Municipal Law Valuation Compensation Highest and Best Use Market Value to Owner Valuation Methodology +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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

City of Halifax

Appellant/defendant

Horst Bauditz

Respondent/plaintiff

Horst Bauditz Limited

Respondent/plaintiff

James Langille

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Expropriation Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Appeal Division of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the highest and best use of the land was for an apartment development
  2. 2 Whether the Appeal Division properly substituted its valuation under statutory review (s.414)
  3. 3 Which pre-expropriation and preparatory expenses are compensable as damages resulting from expropriation

Ratio Decidendi

The Appeal Division's finding that the highest and best use of the land was for apartment development was supported by the evidence and the court properly exercised its statutory review under s.414; the fair market value to the owner was $117,000 and allowable preparatory expenses totalled $25,705.59, producing a corrected award of $142,705.59. The appeal was dismissed except for correcting the expenses figure.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed except correction to expenses; award to respondents fixed at $142,705.59; costs awarded.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Award to respondents set at $142,705.59