Friday, January 20, 2012

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
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".
at

2 comments:

  1. AnonymousJanuary 21, 2012 at 2:43 PM

    Once again, the point is raised that the concessionaires had statutory authority to construct the Canada Line along the agreed-upon route. So far as I am aware, neither Ms. Heyes nor her lawyer ever denied that authority.
    What they did do was testify that
    all so-called public input sessions for area residents and businesses told them:
    1. that the construction method would be the comparatively less disruptive bored tunnel;
    2. that construction would be no more than 2-3 months in front of any one location.
    Ms. Heyes relied upon that fact when she renewed her lease.
    Furthermore, the City of Vancouver was given the same information and voted its conditional approval of the project as described.
    It was only after that confidentiality agreements were signed - names known only to the participants - and the construction method was switched to the hugely disruptive cut and cover.
    It stumps me to this day, why Justice Beverley McLachlan disallowed Ms. Heyes' appeal of the BC Court of Appeal decision to overturn Judge Ian Pitfield's award. Why? Because, as this blog says, the Appeal judges said there was no alternative method that could have been used - and that is patently incorrect.
    Had they said 'no convenient alternative for the concessionaires' it would have been more accurate.
    Lastly, Justice Beverley McLachlan has given speeches over and over again, where she avows the critical importance of "access to justice" for ordinary Canadians. When push came to shove she did not walk the talk.
    How sad.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Evil EyeJanuary 22, 2012 at 10:01 AM

    The real story of the Canada Line are massive cost overruns that are hidden from the publics view, a la BC Hydro and is the reason that Ida Chong (minister responsible for TransLink) and Premier photo-op do not want an independent audit of TransLink.

    Susan Heyes was cannon fodder for SNC Lavalin and their inept (some say deliberate) design of the Canada Line.

    The Canada Line is the only major rail project in North America and Europe which did not have a compensation clause for "loss of business due to construction" for local businesses and residents. Even new build tram lines in Europe offer compensation packages to those adversely affected by construction!

    What the Supreme Court of Canada show, is that they are not concerned with Justice, nor do they care about the average Canadian, rather they take their orders from the PM and his corporate cronies.

    The Susan Heyes decision was a sad day for all of Canada, but a happy day for corrupt politicians, their cronies, and apparently the courts.

    The Supreme Court of Canada uphold the law that "Might is Right"!

    ReplyDelete