O’Brien v. Grand Forks (City)

2026 BCSC 900 O'Brien v. Grand Forks (City) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: O'Brien v. Grand Forks (City), 2026 BCSC 900 Date: 20260501 Docket: S222972 Registry: Victoria Between: Martin O'Brien Plaintiff And The Corporation of the City of Grand Forks Defendant Before: The Honourable Madam Justice Murray Oral Reasons for Judgment The Plaintiff, appearing in person: M. O'Brien Counsel for the Defendant: S. Manhas J. Manhas, Articled Student Place and Dates of Trial: Victoria, B.C. April 27-30, 2026 Place and Date of Judgment: Victoria, B.C. May 1, 2026 INTRODUCTION [1] On May 10, 2018 Grand Forks experienced a one in 200-year flood. Significant damage was caused all over the city. The low-lying North Ruckle neighbourhood of about 60 homes, Mr. O'Brien's being one of them, was the hardest hit. [2] Mr. O'Brien lived in a 504 square foot manufactured home attached to a pier and beam foundation, with an added deck and stairs on a 30 by 110-foot lot. Mr. O'Brien had improved his lot with a wood-framed storage shed, natural stone patio, fencing and landscaping. His home escaped the flood virtually unscathed due to its foundation and weatherproofing. [3] As a result of the extensive damage to the North Ruckle neighbourhood, the City of Grand Forks decided to rezone it non-residential and restore it as flood plain. That meant removing all dwellings and infrastructure - including streets, water, sewer, power - from the area. The city began negotiations toward acquiring the lands. [4] A "drive by" appraisal was done for the purpose of supporting an application by the city for grant funds. In that report, Mr. O'Brien's property was valued at $98,000.00 as of October 31, 2017, and at $83,000.00 as of December 7, 2018. Professional appraiser Oliver Berkeley testified that this appraisal was for the specific purpose of obtaining government grants and did not meet professional standards for an expropriation appraisal. [5] A Land Acquisition Program ("LAP") was the first step taken by the city. Developed and run by Mr. Berkeley, this was a voluntary program in which offers to purchase were made to homeowners according to a formula. The offers included a premium to avoid the costs of expropriation proceedings such as this. [6] Between February 2020 and May 2021 Mr. O'Brien was contacted by the LAP five times about participating in the program. On each occasion Mr. O'Brien made it clear that he was not interested. According to Mr. Berkely, if Mr. O'Brien had participated in the LAP he would have received an offer of $84,000. It is unclear why Mr. O'Brien chose not to be part of the LAP. I think it was a combination of distrust of the program and hope that he would be able to stay in his home. Regardless, Mr. O'Brien testified that right from the start he wanted to be expropriated rather than bought out. [7] Most homeowners in North Ruckle took part in the LAP. The neighbourhood was in serious decline following the flood. As above, there was substantial damage to properties. Most of the houses were vacant. Many were boarded up. Crime increased in the area. Houses were looted. [8] Mr. O'Brien remained. He posted a "No Trespassing" sign on his fence to deter intruders. [9] On August 8, 2021, the City registered an expropriation notice for Mr. O'Brien's property. [10] On August 20, 2021, an appraisal was done of Mr. O'Brien's property to determine its market value for the purpose of expropriation. The property was valued at $62,500. [11] On November 25, 2021, the City delivered to Mr. O'Brien advance payment of $62,511.51 for his property, in compliance with s. 20 of the Expropriation Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 125 [Act]. [12] Mr. Berkeley testified that the 2021 advance payment appraisal involved an inspection of Mr. O'Brien's home and property (as opposed to a drive by). The drop to $62,500.00 from the $83,000.00 value in the 2018 drive-by appraisal report was the result of the appraiser understanding the market and having market data. Stigma of North Ruckle had risen considerably at that time. Stigma is a factor in appraisals. [13] A third appraisal was completed by Mr. Berkely for this litigation. He appraised Mr. O'Brien's property at $64,000 as at the time of the expropriation. On April 17, 2026, Mr. O'Brien received $1,500 (being the difference between $64,000 and $62,500) as well as the 5% payment required by s. 38 of the Act plus interest on both. [14] In this action Mr. O'Brien challenges the amount of compensation he received. He claims the following: a) An additional $116,000.00 on account of the market value of the property and/or in disturbance damages caused by the expropriation based on his assertion that he is entitled to be compensated for his loss of utility of the property; b) $18,864.00 in disturbance damages as compensation for his net rental costs from when he was required to move from the property to the present time; c) $3,122.05 in disturbance damages as compensation for his moving expenses, including the value of his own time; and, d) $7,141.91 in disturbance damages as compensation for costs incurred in pursuing this claim, including the value of his own time. The Expropriation Act [15] The provisions of the Act pertaining to the determination of compensation payable to an owner whose interest in property has been expropriated are ss. 30-45. [16] Section 30 of the Act provides an owner with the right to compensation in relation to an expropriation. It provides as follows: Right to compensation 30 (1) Every owner of land that is expropriated is entitled to compensation, to be determined in accordance with this Act. (2) If the amount of compensation determined under this Act is less than (a) the amount paid under section 20, or (b) any other amount paid by the expropriating authority on account of compensation, the court must order the amount of the difference as payable to the expropriating authority by the owner to whom the overpayment was made. [17] Section 31 of the Act sets out the basic formula for compensation as follows: Basic formula 31 (1) The court must award as compensation to an owner the market value of the owner's estate or interest in the expropriated land plus reasonable damages for disturbance but, if the market value is based on a use of the land other than its use at the date of expropriation, the compensation payable is the greater of (a) the market value of the land based on its use at the date of expropriation plus reasonable damages under section 34, and (b) the market value of the land based on its highest and best use at the date of expropriation. (2) If not included in the market value of land determined in accordance with section 32, the following must be added to that market value: (a) the value of a special economic advantage to the owner arising out of the owner's occupation or use of the land; (b) the value of improvements made by an owner occupying a residence located on the land. (3) If there is more than one separate interest in the land expropriated, the value of each interest must, if practical, be established separately. [18] Section 32 of the Act defines "market value" as follows: Definition of market value 32 The market value of an estate or interest in land is the amount that would have been paid for it if it had been sold at the date of expropriation in the open market by a willing seller to a willing buyer. [19] Section 34 of the Act addresses disturbance damages specifically. It provides as follows: Disturbance damages generally 34 (1) An owner whose land is expropriated is entitled to disturbance damages consisting of the following: (a) reasonable costs, expenses and financial losses that are directly attributable to the disturbance caused to the owner by the expropriation; (b) reasonable costs of relocating on other land, including reasonable moving, legal and survey costs that are necessarily incurred in acquiring a similar interest or estate in the other land. (2) If a cost, expense or loss is claimed as a disturbance damage and that cost, expense or loss has not yet been incurred, either the claimant or the expropriating authority may, with the consent of the court, elect to have the cost, expense or loss determined at the time, not more than 6 months after the date of expropriation, that the cost, expense or loss is incurred. (3) If an owner whose land is expropriated carried on a business on that land at the date of expropriation and, after the date of expropriation, relocates the business to and operates it from other land, reasonable business losses directly attributable to the expropriation must not, unless that person and the expropriating authority otherwise agree, be determined until the earlier of (a) 6 months after the owner has operated the business from the other land, and (b) one year after the date of the expropriation. (4) If the court determines that it is not feasible for an owner to relocate the owner's business, there may be included in the compensation that is otherwise payable, an additional amount not exceeding the value of the goodwill of the business. [20] Section 35 allows for compensation for "the reasonable cost of equivalent reinstatement", for churches, hospitals, schools or similar uses for which there is no general demand or market only. There is like provision for residences. [21] Lastly, s. 38 of the Act provides for a payment of 5% of the market value of the person's estate in addition to the s. 34 reimbursement, to a person who occupies expropriated land as their residence. [22] With those provisions in mind, I will consider each claim in turn. a) The Claim for Compensation for Market Value/Disturbance Damages for Loss of Utility [23] Mr. O'Brien claims an additional $116,000.00 on account of the market value of the property and/or as disturbance damages caused by the expropriation based on his assertion that he is entitled to be compensated for his loss of utility of the property. In asserting this claim, Mr. O'Brien claims that his property is worth $180,000. No foundation has been established for this amount. What Mr. O'Brien seems to be claiming under this head of damage is replacement of his home. [24] Under s. 31 of the Act, Mr. O'Brien is entitled to the market value of the property plus reasonable disturbance damages under s. 34. Accordingly, in order to succeed on his claim for the additional $116,000.00, Mr. O'Brien must prove that he is entitled to that amount on the basis that either: a) The market value of the property as at December 6, 2021, was $180,000.00; or, b) He suffered disturbance damages in that amount as a result of his loss of utility of the property. [25] Mr. O'Brien has failed to prove either. [26] It is established that claims regarding the valuation of property require expert evidence: Stolba v. Comwave, 2019 BCCA 120, at paras. 40-41. The only expert evidence before this Court is Mr. Berkely's that values Mr. O'Brien's property at $64,000 as at the date of expropriation. I accept that evidence. [27] It is further established that the amount required by an owner to acquire a replacement home in excess of the market value paid by an expropriating body in an expropriation does not amount to disturbance damages. There is no provision in the Act to claim for equivalent reinstatement on the principle of "a home for a home": Apland v. British Columbia (Minister of Transportation & Highways) (1996), ECB No. 46/95/130, 60 L.C.R. 107, at the heading "4. FIRST ISSUE: THE $8,000 CLAIM". [28] This claim is dismissed. b) The Claim for Net Rental Costs [29] Mr. O'Brien claims $18,864.00 as disturbance damages caused by the expropriation based on his assertion that he is entitled to be compensated for his net rental costs from when he was required to move from the property to the present time. [30] Section 34(2) of the Act limits a claim of this sort to a period of 6 months after the date of expropriation. [31] I am satisfied that Mr. O'Brien is entitled to a disturbance damage of rent for 6 months at $342 per month that he incurred as a direct result of the expropriation. c) The Claim for Moving Expenses and Owner's Time [32] Mr. O'Brien claims $3,122.05 as disturbance damages caused by the expropriation based on his assertion that he is entitled to be compensated for his moving expenses. [33] Of the amount claimed, $2,730.00 relates to his own time. [34] Claims for owner's time have routinely been rejected as a basis for compensation unless there is a corresponding loss: Heringa v. City of Nanaimo, 2010 BCSC 1571, at para. 67. There is no such loss here. [35] The City fairly accepts that Mr. O'Brien has listed in Exhibit 3, Doc. 1.18, $392.05 of expenses that he incurred in moving, including the costs of renting a storage locker for a short period of time. I am satisfied that Mr. O'Brien has proven those expenses. [36] I find that Mr. O'Brien is entitled to $392.05 moving expenses as a disturbance damage. D) The Claim for Costs of Pursuing the Claim [37] Mr. O'Brien claims $7,141.91 as disturbance damages caused by the expropriation based on his assertion that he is entitled to be compensated for costs incurred by him in pursuing this claim, including the value of his own time. [38] I agree with the City that this is a costs issue, not a disturbance damage. [39] This claim is dismissed. CONCLUSION [40] Mr. O'Brien is entitled to the following as disturbance damages: rent for 6 months at $342 per month plus $392.05 for moving expenses plus interest from the date of expropriation. [41] The rest of Mr. O'Brien's claims are dismissed. [42] Mr. O'Brien is not entitled to costs as he is substantially unsuccessful. [43] I want to thank Mr. Manhas for his professionalism and the courtesy with which he treated Mr. O'Brien throughout this trial. "The Honourable Madam Justice Murray"