Susan Heyes comes to mind with this: "Indeed in one early Canadian case an owner was put out of business through injurious affection but without redress since the injury was to his business and not to the land." BC Royal Commission on Expropriation 1963

In 1963 I didn't pay too much attention to Expropriation Laws in BC, especially one that was reviewed by a BC Royal Commission that year, but having said that, and having seen what Susan Heyes has gone through, the loss of her customer base, having to move to another location, and then the Supreme Court of Canada turning a blind eye to justice not being seen......  you see, there's this little problem I'm not understanding, that is, how Susan Heyes has been Royally ripped off by the Government(s).

From the Vancouver Sun
The Supreme Court of Canada has refused to hear an appeal from Vancouver clothing store owner Susan Heyes in her six-year-old fight against the Canada Line builders.
The country's highest court, as is its practice, did not give reasons for refusing to hear the landmark B.C. case.
In February, the B.C. Court of Appeal overturned a $600,000 award Heyes won from B.C. Supreme Court in the David-vs.-Goliath battle she launched in 2005.
A three-justice panel unanimously found that the owner of Hazel and Co. was not entitled to compensation for business losses incurred when Canada Line construction impeded traffic in the area.
The panel said the construction companies behind the $2-billion megaproject were legally authorized to disrupt Cambie Street to complete the project.
"In short, the Canada Line could not be built without significant disturbance to many citizens' use and enjoyment of their property," the appeal court said.
"There was no construction method that provided a non-nuisance alternative in building the Canada Line."

The claim that the Canada Line couldn't be built without significant disturbance doesn't give them the right to ruin a perfectly sound business of Susan Heyes.   The fact that the Supreme Court of Canada didn't have to give a reason as to why they wouldn't make a ruling in Ms. Heyes case, could be construed to mean that they knew that its already covered by BC Provincial.






"Indeed in one early Canadian case an owner was put out of business through injurious affection but without redress since the injury was to his business and not to the land."

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Report of the

BRITISH COLUMBIA

ROYAL COMMISSION ON EXPROPRIATION

1961-63

THE HONOURABLE J. V. CLYNE

Commissioner

Counsel:

N, T. NEMETZ, ESQ., Q.C.

R. C. BRAY, ESQ.

Registrar:

J. N. LYON, ESQ.

1. The term "expropriation", as used in this Province, encompasses not only the compulsory acquisition of property but also injurious affection to property resulting from the exercise of powers of expropriation. Compulsory acqUisition provides for a transfer of property rights carried out under statutory compulsion and is therefore analogous to a contract for the purchase of property. Injurious affection denotes the causing of damage to property, irrespective of whether property is acquired from the owner, and is therefore analogous to an injury giving a right of action for damages. These two matters will be dealt with separately in this report, but they both come within the area of law covered by the term "expropriation".