tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5251250297030815041.post4769451592179021340..comments2023-08-07T22:39:49.127-07:00Comments on Blog Borg Collective: 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 1963North Van's Grumpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17571810726275726952noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5251250297030815041.post-88605347969758599172012-01-22T10:01:20.803-08:002012-01-22T10:01:20.803-08:00The real story of the Canada Line are massive cost...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.<br /><br />Susan Heyes was cannon fodder for SNC Lavalin and their inept (some say deliberate) design of the Canada Line.<br /><br />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!<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />The Supreme Court of Canada uphold the law that "Might is Right"!Evil Eyenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5251250297030815041.post-40795808659235018972012-01-21T14:43:10.535-08:002012-01-21T14:43:10.535-08:00Once again, the point is raised that the concessio...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.<br />What they did do was testify that<br />all so-called public input sessions for area residents and businesses told them:<br />1. that the construction method would be the comparatively less disruptive bored tunnel;<br />2. that construction would be no more than 2-3 months in front of any one location.<br />Ms. Heyes relied upon that fact when she renewed her lease.<br />Furthermore, the City of Vancouver was given the same information and voted its conditional approval of the project as described.<br />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.<br />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.<br />Had they said 'no convenient alternative for the concessionaires' it would have been more accurate.<br />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.<br />How sad.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com