A-191-83
The Queen (Appellant) (Defendant)
v.
C.J.R.T. Developments Ltd. (Respondent) (Plain-
tiff)
Court of Appeal, Pratte, Le Dain JJ. and Cowan
D.J.—Vancouver, May 10, 1983.
Aeronautics — Statutory interpretation — Trial Judge not
taking into consideration amendment to zoning Regulations
adopted between original Regulations and judgment for pur
poses of determining compensation for injurious affection
attributable to enactment of Regulations — S. 6(10) of Act
only giving right to claim as compensation amount by which
'property was decreased in value by the enactment of the
regulation' — Appeal dismissed — Aeronautics Act, R.S.C.
1970, c. A-3, s. 6(10) — Comox Airport Zoning Regulations,
SOR/80-803 (as am. by SOR/81-719).
CASE JUDICIALLY CONSIDERED
APPLIED:
Roberts and Bagwell v. The Queen, [1957] S.C.R. 28.
COUNSEL:
G. Carruthers for appellant (defendant).
D. Gray for respondent (plaintiff).
SOLICITORS:
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for
appellant (defendant).
Van Cuylenborg & Gray, Victoria, for
respondent (plaintiff).
The following are the reasons for judgment of
the Court delivered orally in English by
PRATTE J.: The judgment of the Trial Division
[[1983] 2 F.C. 410] was attacked by the appellant
on the sole ground that the Trial Judge, in deter
mining the compensation payable to the respond
ent under subsection 6(10) of the Aeronautics Act
[R.S.C. 1970, c. A-3] as a result of the enactment
of the Comox Airport Zoning Regulations [SOR/
80-803 (as am. by SOR/81-719)], should have
taken into consideration the amendment that was
made to those Regulations on September 16, 1981.
In our opinion, the Trial Judge correctly dis
posed of the appellant's argument and we find
support for what he said on this subject in the
following passage of the reasons for judgment of
the Supreme Court of Canada in Roberts and
Bagwell v. The Queen' where Nolan J. said:
It is quite clear that the subsequent revocation of the Regula
tion could not give rise to a claim against the owner for a return
of any part of compensation already paid and that result
cannot, in effect, be reversed by withholding compensation until
after the particular burden has been removed.
The conclusion reached by the Trial Judge may,
in certain cases, produce inequitable results. But
that anomaly flows from the wording of subsection
6(10). Indeed, that subsection does not give to
persons affected by the operation of a zoning
regulation the right to claim compensation for the
damages suffered by them; it gives them, instead,
the right to claim as compensation, the amount by
which their "property was decreased in value by
the enactment of the regulation". [The underlining
is mine.]
The appeal will be dismissed with costs.
' [1957] S.C.R. 28, at p. 38.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.