Melcar Inc. et al. v. Ministre de la Voirie de Québec et al.

Melcar Inc. et al. v. Ministre de la Voirie de Québec et al.

The Board correctly applied s.25 of the Roads Act; because the servitude of non‑access did not render the property practically non‑utilizable and the Minister had compensated for the subsequent expropriation of a portion of the land, no indemnity was due and the Board's determination was properly affirmed by the courts.

Citation
[1970] SCR 421
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Melcar Inc.; Plaintiff/appellant: Henri Deslauriers; Defendant/respondent: Ministre de la Voirie de Québec; Defendant/respondent: Procureur Général de Québec
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 January 1970
Procedural Posture
Expropriation / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench (appeal Side) Affirming Superior Court Homologation of Public Service Board Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Servitude of Non Access, Compensation/indemnity, Statutory Interpretation, Administrative Deference
Source Language
English
Expropriation Property Law Administrative Law Servitude of Non Access Compensation/indemnity Statutory Interpretation Administrative Deference

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 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Melcar Inc.

Plaintiff/appellant

Henri Deslauriers

Plaintiff/appellant

Ministre de la Voirie de Québec

Defendant/respondent

Procureur Général de Québec

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Expropriation / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench (appeal Side) Affirming Superior Court Homologation of Public Service Board Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Public Service Board was bound to apply s.25 of the Roads Act in adjudicating indemnity for a servitude of non-access
  2. 2 Whether, on the evidence, appellants were entitled to indemnity under applicable law given that the servitude did not render the immoveable practically non‑utilizable and part of the land was later expropriated and compensated

Ratio Decidendi

The Board correctly applied s.25 of the Roads Act; because the servitude of non‑access did not render the property practically non‑utilizable and the Minister had compensated for the subsequent expropriation of a portion of the land, no indemnity was due and the Board's determination was properly affirmed by the courts.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Homologation of the Public Service Board order affirmed