Tekmin Inc. v. Canada
A-641-92
Marceau J.A.
5/1/95
11 pp.
Appeal from Trial Division decision determining amount of compensation appellant company entitled to under Expropriation Act, s. 25(1)(a) as result of expropriation of piece of land-Minister expropriated piece of land acquired by appellant company with view to operating sand and gravel pit-Issue determination of value of expropriated interest on date of taking-Act, s. 26(2) providing value of expropriated interest equal to amount that would have been paid for interest if, at time of taking, had been sold in open market by willing seller to willing buyer-To determine market value of expropriated interest herein, Trial Judge adopted parity method, involving study and analysis of real estate transactions having occurred in market, totally excluding method based on profit to be realized from exploitation of property-Court cannot allow itself to dispute judge's adoption of particular method of valuation as choice based on assessment of evidence which appeal court must respect in absence of grave and patent error-To determine market value of property, as defined by Act, method consisting of determining probable sale price in open market, based on sales of comparable properties in neighbouring region ("comparables" method of valuation) so superior to any other that cannot be ruled out unless one is convinced impossible to use it-On other hand, appeal court may intervene when comparables valuation method applied arbitrarily or in manner devoid of rational foundation as in case at bar-Judge wrong to reject from list of comparable sales those where seller bankrupt or bankrupt's trustee, or trust company which had repossessed property given as security for debt owing to it (unique sales)-Reason stated for excluding these unique sales, that sales not representative as transacted by vendors more or less forced to dispose of property in bankruptcy, not sufficient to justify automatic exclusion-Price of these unique sales very probably lower than normal market price, but wrong to attach no significance to them-Moreover, no support in evidence for adjustments to prices of some of sales selected to allow for supposed superiority of properties over expropriated property, and in addition appraiser had no knowledge on which could make judgment on point-Finally, approach adopted, determining average value of sale prices by dividing sales selected into subgroups, unjustified mathematical exercise-Appeal allowed to remedy patent errors identified in application of comparables valuation method-Expropriation Act, R.S.C. 1970 (1st Supp.), c. 16, s. 25(1)(a).