Bellerose v. Duplessis et al.

Bellerose v. Duplessis et al.
Collection
Supreme Court Judgments
Date
1958-04-01
Report
[1958] SCR 261
Judges
Taschereau, Robert; Rand, Ivan Cleveland; Fauteux, Joseph Honoré Gérald; Abbott, Douglas Charles; Judson, Wilfred
On appeal from
Quebec
Subjects
Expropriation
Decision Content
Supreme Court of Canada
Bellerose v. Duplessis et al., [1958] S.C.R. 261
Date: 1958-04-01
Joseph Desire Bellerose Appellant;
and
The Honourable Maurice Duplessis, as Attorney General of the Province of Quebec, and The Honourable Antonio Talbot, as Minister of Roads for the Province of Quebec Respondents.
1958: February 28; 1958: April 1.
Present: Taschereau, Rand, Fauteux, Abbott and Judson JJ.
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, APPEAL SIDE, PROVINCE OF QUEBEC.
Expropriation—Compensation—Relocation of provincial highway—Code of Civil Procedure, arts. 1066a et seq.—Applicability of s. 97 of the Roads Act, R.S.Q. 1941, c. 141.
The plaintiff was awarded $1,515.90 for the expropriation of a small portion of his farm needed for the relocation and widening of a provincial highway. In this Court, he disputed two items: (1) an allowance for the future maintenance of a new access road, and (2) the compensation for inconvenience by reason of the new highway being located some 200 feet farther away from his buildings than the old highway.
Held: The appeal should be dismissed. The amounts awarded by the Public Service Board were not so manifestly inadequate as to call for any interference by either the Court of Appeal or this Court, nor was, it shown that the Board had proceeded upon any wrong principle.
It was not necessary to express an opinion as to whether or not s. 97 of the Roads Act had any application.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Queen's; Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec1, affirming a. judgment of Ferland J. homologating a decision of the Public Service Board in an expropriation matter. Appeal-dismissed.
L. Dugas, Q.C., for the appellant.
L. Tremblay, Q.C., and J. R. Piette, for the respondents.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by
Abbott J. :—This appeal involves a claim for indemnity-arising out of the expropriation of a small portion of" appellant's farm needed for the relocation and widening; of a provincial highway. The matter was submitted to the Public Service Board, as required by arts. 1066a and following of the Code of Civil Procedure, for the purpose of fixing the amount of the compensation to which the appellant was entitled.
Following a hearing by the Board, appellant was awarded as compensation a total sum of $1,515.90, which included items for the area of land expropriated (1.05 arpents), depreciation of another small strip (1.89 arpents) between the proposed new highway and the old highway, and two items which are the only ones in issue in the present appeal, the first covering the future maintenance of a new access road, and the second, compensation for inconvenience by reason of the new highway being located some 200 feet farther away from appellant's buildings than the old highway. For these two items appellant was awarded the sums of $500 and $250, respectively.
On appeal to the Court of Queen's Bench2, the majority of that Court affirmed the award made by the Board, but Bissonnette J. would have increased by $500 the amount awarded for maintenance of the new access road, by $2,400 the amount awarded as compensation for inconvenience and loss resulting from the increased distance from the farm buildings to the new highway, and would have added to the award the relatively small amount of $15.70 for compulsory taking.
At the conclusion of the hearing I was satisfied that the amounts awarded by the Public Service Board were not ' so manifestly inadequate as to call for any interference either by the Court of Appeal or by this Court, nor was it shown that the Board had proceeded upon any wrong principle in reaching the decision which it did.
Having reached this conclusion, I do not find it necessary to express an opinion as to whether or not s. 97 of the Roads Act, R.S.Q. 1941, c. 141, has any application.
The appeal should be dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Attorneys for the appellant: Dugas, Dugas & Dugas, Joliette.
Attorney for the respondents: J. R. Piette, Joliette.
1 [1957] Que. Q.B 637.
2 [1957] Que. Q.B. 637.