Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Municipal law - Civil procedure - Powers of municipality - Expropriation - Statutes - Interpretation - Costs - Solicitor and client costs - Whether “municipal purpose” is broad enough to include lands not required for a municipal project - Whether the rules of restrictive construction with respect to municipal expropriations and municipal actions outside the scope of their normal activities are no longer applicable given the decision in 114957 Canada Ltée (Spraytech, Société d’arrosage) v. Hudson (Town), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 241 - Whether a different test applies when governments consider recommendations of commissions in expropriation cases when compared to a similar process for judicial compensation cases - Whether there is a presumptive principle in expropriation and related matters that the landowner should have its reasonable costs on a solicitor-client basis.

In February 2005, the Respondent, Rural Municipality of Ellice, passed a resolution authorizing expropriation proceedings with respect to 288 acres of land owned by the Applicants, the Fouillards. The land in question included the ruins of the historic Fort Ellice trading post, which was built in 1831. A notice of intended expropriation was issued on April 13, 2005. The Applicants objected to the proposed expropriation. Pursuant to Schedule “A” of the Expropriation Act, C.C.S.M. c. E190, an inquiry officer was appointed to review the proposal. After hearing from both sides, the inquiry officer released his report on August 21, 2005. He concluded that only the expropriation of the historic site, which was approximately 90 acres, was reasonably necessary. Notwithstanding the recommendation of the inquiry officer, the Respondent passed a confirming order on September 14, 2005, reaffirming its intention to expropriate the 288-acre parcel of land. The Applicants brought an application in the Court of Queen’s Bench seeking a declaration that the resolution and subsequent confirming order were invalid and further seeking a declaration that the Respondent had no jurisdiction to expropriate the land in question. The Applicants’ application was dismissed; however, the judge awarded solicitor-and-client costs to the Applicants. Their subsequent appeal was also dismissed. The Respondent cross-appealed with respect to the order for solicitor-and-client costs. The cross-appeal was allowed.