I Richard Harris was in Court of Appeal to day Nov_2007

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW BRUNSWICK

Turnbull, Drapeau and Robertson, JJ.A.



B E T W E E N:

RONALD R. YOUNG ) Douglas Caldwell, Q.C.
) and Bruno Roy, Esq.
(Applicant) APPELANT ) for the Appellant
)
- and - )
)
THE CITY OF MONCTON ) Stephen M. Trueman, Esq.
) and Anne F. Beaulieu, Esqe.
(Respondent) RESPONDENT ) for the Respondent
The appeal is dismissed and the appellant is ordered to pay the respondent costs in the amount of $1,500.

6] At trial, the appellant claimed the sum of $255,000 as compensation under the Act. W.H. Goodwin Jr., who was qualified as an expert in the field of real estate appraisal, testified in support of the appellant’s claim. In Mr. Goodwin’s opinion, the highest and best use of the subject property at the time of expropriation involved the conversion of the four-room school building, which he found to be structurally sound and to have significant commercial value, into a 12-unit “motel plan” apartment building. Mr. Goodwin explained that there are no central hallways in a motel style apartment, each tenant having direct access from his unit to the outside, and that, by sparing the owner the cost of heating and lighting the hallways as well as the cost of their maintenance, a motel style apartment is significantly less expensive to operate than other, more conventional, types of apartment buildings.

Just prior to the commencement of the trial, the Appellant’s solicitor at the time, Mr. Edwin G. Ehrhardt and the solicitor for the City of Moncton, Mr. Stephen M. Trueman, attended an “in chambers” meeting with the trial judge. During this meeting, the trial judge, Mr. Justice Paul Godin, indicated to the solicitors that he was faced with two conflicting appraisal reports. The trial judge reminded the solicitors of one of his recent decisions wherein he had concluded that the Court should rely on one of the appraisal reports to the exclusion of the other in its entirety. Mr. Justice Godin gave the solicitors a strong indication that he may well be in the same position in this case. ...

nalysis and Decision

I. Preliminary Issues

Did the trial judge misapprehend, as the appellant contends, the scope of his adjudicative duties on the issue of the subject property’s market value?

Did the trial judge improperly refuse to order production of relevant documents?

[20] In my view, Mr. Doucet’s direct comparison approach to the valuation of the bare land complied with the governing standards for professional appraisals. I now turn to the appellant’s substantive challenge to the market value determination made in the court below.


I can see a pattern in all most all Appeal With Goodwin & caldwell