IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW BRUNSWICK

Hoyt, C.J.N.B., Ayles and Ryan, JJ.A.

Date: 19970324

Docket: 92/96/CA

BETWEEN:

THOMAS DANA SNITCH

(Respondent) APPELLANT

-and-

TOWN OF DIEPPE

(Petitioner) RESPONDENT

APPEAL FROM DECISION OF Godin, J.

March 13, 1996

DATE OF HEARING March 11, 1997

DATE OF DECISION March 24, 1997

COUNSEL:

Peter J. Beardsworth, Esq. for the Appellant

Sylvio A. LeBlanc, Esq. for the Respondent

THE COURT

The appeal is dismissed with costs.

THE COURT

This is an appeal from a decision of Godin, J. in the Court of Queen's Bench, in which he fixed compensation of $16,000.00 for land owned by the appellant Thomas Dana Snitch that was expropriated by the respondent Town of Dieppe on July 6, 1994. The decision is now reported in 174 N.B.R. (2d) 380. The decision followed a compensation hearing made necessary when Mr. Snitch refused the Town's offer of compensation.

The property, which had an assessed value of $10,800.00 at the time of expropriation, is a vacant lot of approximately 20,000 square feet located in an R-2 zone at the southern end of Beausejour Street in Dieppe. Apart from a sanitary sewer line that crossed the property, it was undeveloped. Both Beausejour Street and the municipal services stopped approximately 110 feet from the boundary of the property. The R-2 zoning permitted either a one or two family dwelling on the lot. Mr. Snitch, who purchased the property in 1991 for $12,000.00, operated a company engaged in the wholesale and retail supply of construction and industrial fasteners. It was his intention to eventually relocate his business to the property. Before doing so, however, Paul Street would have to have been completed so that the property would have access to a main thoroughfare. The land in the area, apart from the lots that fronted on either Champlain Street or Acadia Avenue, was, with one exception, in an R-2 zone. The one exception was a lot on an adjoining street that was rezoned in 1973.

It was with such information that the parties' appraisers based their opinions. The Town's appraiser, Daniel Doucet, valued the expropriated property at $16,000.00 based on its present zoning. Mr. Snitch's appraiser Harrison Goodwin, valued the land at $64,000.00. It was the latter's view that the highest and best use for the property, following a rezoning, would be a 16 unit apartment building. Mr. Goodwin acknowledged

[Page 2]

that it was "a critical premise" of his appraisal that the property would be rezoned. Both appraisers declined to attribute any value to the property based on the projected completion of Paul Street. Mr. Goodwin, for example, said "that the realization of Paul Street Extension is too remote for the purpose of this appraisal".

The Judge rejected Mr. Goodwin's appraisal because he was satisfied, from the evidence, that the land could not be rezoned as contemplated by Mr. Goodwin, thus leaving the property to be valued on its present zoning. The Judge said:

There is a history of consistent adherence to the existing municipal development plan in the area. That plan is consistent with the present zoning for the subject property. The rezoning of the subject property to allow the development of a multiple family dwelling on the subject property is speculative and remote. It is not a realistic consideration in arriving at the market value of the property.

Mr. Snitch submits that the Judge erred in reaching this conclusion because properties in the area have in the past been rezoned to uses that would permit a multiple unit apartment building, thus validating Mr. Goodwin's appraisal approach.

The evidence of Roland Richard, Director of Engineering and Public Works for the Town of Dieppe, and of Michelle Couturier, a Planner for the Greater Moncton Planning District Commission, supports the Judge's conclusion. Ms. Couturier pointed out that in 1995, a Municipal Plan was adopted that confirmed the R-2 zoning for this property, a zoning that existed since 1966. For the property to be developed for

[Page 3]

multiple dwelling use, there would have to have been spot rezoning that, Ms. Couturier testified, is "not to be encouraged at all". The entire basis for Mr. Goodwin's appraisal was predicated upon a rezoning for a 16 unit apartment building, a rezoning that, based on the evidence, the Judge found to be "not a realistic consideration". The evidence amply supports that finding. Apart from properties fronting on Champlain Street and Acadia Avenue, no rezoning from R-2 has occurred in that area since 1973. The recent adoption of the Municipal Plan in 1995 would confirm a continuance of that policy.

To determine the value of a property based upon a use other than that permitted by the zoning at the time of expropriation, there must be a realistic and reasonable probability of such a rezoning. Such probability does not exist in the present case.

Apart from the history of rezoning in that area, the lot itself, as pointed out by Mr. Doucet, presents practical problems for such a development. He, along with Mr. Richard, testified that the lot would have to accommodate a turning area and, as a result, the lot would not accommodate the 16 unit building as well. Thus, not only was there evidence to support the Judge's finding that it was unlikely that a rezoning would be approved, the lot could not accommodate the proposed building.

For the above reasons, we dismiss the appeal with costs of $500.00 payable by the appellant to the respondent.


URL:	http://www.canlii.org/en/nb/nbca/doc/1997/1997canlii12076/1997canlii12076.html

Reflex Record (noteup and cited decisions)

Noteup

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW BRUNSWICK

Hoyt, C.J.N.B., Ayles and Ryan, JJ.A.

Date: 19970324

Docket: 92/96/CA

BETWEEN:

THOMAS DANA SNITCH

(Respondent) APPELLANT

-and-

TOWN OF DIEPPE

(Petitioner) RESPONDENT

APPEAL FROM DECISION OF Godin, J.

March 13, 1996

DATE OF HEARING March 11, 1997

DATE OF DECISION March 24, 1997

COUNSEL:

Peter J. Beardsworth, Esq. for the Appellant

Sylvio A. LeBlanc, Esq. for the Respondent

THE COURT

The appeal is dismissed with costs.

THE COURT

[Page 2]

[Page 3]

For the above reasons, we dismiss the appeal with costs of $500.00 payable by the appellant to the respondent.

About CanLII

Mission

To support the legal profession in the performance of its duties while providing the public with permanent open access to the legal heritage of all Canadian jurisdiction.

Partners

The Canadian Legal Information Institute (CanLII) is a not-for-profit organization created by the Federation of Law Societies of Canada (the Federation).

CanLII is funded by the members of the Federation of Law Societies of Canada, in other words, the bar associations of Canada’s provinces and territories and the Chambre des notaires du Québec.

CanLII’s primary product, namely its website, is produced by the LexUM Laboratory at the Université de Montréal’s Faculty of Law.

Background

By the end of the 1990s, a number of collections of legislation were available free of charge on the Internet, and a significant number of courts were also offering free access to their decisions. This was major progress in access to law in Canada. However, the many different websites made it difficult to perform efficient global searches of all the texts, and a large number of collections of legislation and case law were still not accessible.

Gradually, an idea for solving these problems began to gain ground: an integrated website for primary sources of Canadian law could be set up. The idea germinated in the Federation’s National Technology Committee (the Committee), which, in February 2000, proposed creating a virtual library of Canadian law. The LexUM team was also working on the same idea at the time, and, with the support of the Department of Justice Canada, produced a prototype of such a library. The prototype demonstrated the advantages of publishing legal texts in an integrated manner. The Federation’s Committee prepared a strategic plan for a site on which all Canadian law would be published, and mandated LexUM to set up a pilot site. The plan was presented and approved at the Federation’s annual meeting on August 24, 2000, and the pilot site was put on line the same day, under the name of CanLII.

In July 2001, the Federation created a not-for-profit organization, the Canadian Legal Information Institute (CanLII), to ensure that the pilot project would become a long-term, reliable resource. Today, CanLII’s website is recognized as the largest Web resource providing access to legal documents from Canada’s federal, provincial and territorial governments for both legal practitioners and the general public. CanLII is now an essential component of the legal information system in Canada.

Acknowledgements

CanLII has benefited from a number of crucial contributions, which should be acknowledged. First, there are those of Canada’s federal provincial and territorial governments and their official publishers, which make their texts available and permit republication on CanLII. Next, Canadian legal practitioners fund CanLII through fees to their professional associations, and finally LexUM provides expertise and know-how.

CanLII abides by the Montréal Declaration and is a member of the Free Access to Law Movement, which includes the primary players involved in free, open publication of law throughout the world.

Board of Directors

The CanLII Board of Directors sets CanLII policy, acts as a trustee and maintains and develops CanLII’s relations with the Federation of Law Societies of Canada, Canadian law societies themselves and other crucial stakeholders. Board members are appointed by Canada’s law societies.