Maher v. Canada
T-2906-93
Blais J.
22/4/99
38 pp.
Action against Crown to recover compensation as result of expropriation by defendant of land plaintiffs claim to have owned-Plaintiffs legal heirs, executors and fiduciary legatees of father, Thomas Maher, who died March 7, 1980-Latter as president and virtually sole shareholder of Cie d'Immeubles du Lac St-Joseph Ltée owner of several parcels of land and forest concessions in Lac St-Joseph area-On August 11, 1950, Cie d'Immeubles du Lac St-Joseph Ltée sold most of old girder railway to Municipal Corporation of Shannon, and road subsequently became public road-On October 1, 1957 it sold all its remaining forest concessions and immovable property to Murdock Lumber Ltée-On September 1, 1965 Department of National Defence proceeded to expropriate several lots and forest concessions in Lac St-Joseph area, including Murdock Lumber Ltée concessions-Pursuant to notice of expropriation Department of National Defence simply took possession of old girder railway, in fact lot 763, and branch line associated with railway, lot 858-No evidence any amount paid to cover part of road at issue, namely lots 763 and 858-Plaintiffs asked that road previously sold to Municipal Corporation of Shannon be reconveyed to them in accordance with provisions of paragraphs 3 and 4 of deed of sale of August 11, 1950-Purpose of conveyance to return right of ownership of said land and lots 763 and 858 in official cadaster of Parish of Ste-Catherine to estate of plaintiffs by successive effect of dissolution of company and death of plaintiffs' father-Plaintiffs claimed fair and reasonable compensation from defendant, with applicable interest, as result of expropriation of said land-As had heard nothing from defendant, plaintiffs brought this action claiming total of $1,123,300 in capital and interest-Public Curator himself who took decision to issue public notice seeking owners of abandoned property-Did not undertake administration of this abandoned property-Defendant's claim that Public Curator owner of said abandoned property on April 15, 1993 must be rejected-Plaintiffs argued that if Department of National Defence entitled to proceed with expropriation, expropriated parties also entitled to be compensated-Pursuant to right of ownership held over property by liquidated company, property reverted to sole shareholder, and on his death, in accordance with rules of succession, to plaintiffs at bar-Although several years have passed since transactions, fact remains plaintiffs entitled to be compensated-As result of refusal by defendant to compensate them in accordance with law that they brought action in 1993 to recover just and reasonable compensation-Documentary evidence and testimonial evidence showed when land was sold to Municipal Corporation of Shannon in 1950 it was in good condition and plaintiffs' father had spent additional sum of $4,000 to improve road bed before he handed it over to municipality-Evidence regarding value of road was established in professional manner with aid of aerial photographs-Defendant did not authorize plaintiffs to have access to said road to prepare expert opinion until November 18, 1998, some two weeks before hearing-Although value of land must be determined at date of expropriation in order to arrive at value of compensation, it is also necessary to go back to date of sale of land by Cie d'Immeubles du Lac St-Joseph Ltée to Municipality of Shannon in 1950 before road construction work was done-Court decided amount of cost of building road set at $381,747 could be set at same amount for 1950, applying depreciation for years of use by municipality, namely between 1950 and 1965-Capital to bear interest at ordinary rate of 5% per annum from October 22, 1993 to April 22, 1999, making total of $358,758.08 for value of land-Accepted that depreciation should be applied for each piece of property-Only depreciation based on deterioration due to use can be applied-Plaintiffs showed entitled to receive fair compensation for expropriation of lots 858 and 763 in Parish of Ste-Catherine-Court ordered defendant to pay plaintiffs sum of $358,758.08 plus costs of expert opinion and interest from April 22, 1999.