look for a Change in the system we the people will have to do it. we need JUSTICE not injustice
How do I get a corrupt legal system to investigate, charge and convict itself?
Canada's Prime Ministers bring a variety of life experiences to the job. This unique collection highlights the political and electoral histories of our Prime Ministers and includes biographical details. When available, a bibliography of selected publications for each Prime Minister is included.
Phone #: 506-633-2712
Fax #: 506-632-8809
Key contact: Franklin O Leger
Sales: $1 - $5 Million
Products and Services Description |
| Attorneys
|
AECL paying out $100M for Point Lepreau, Bruce refurbishment delays
Last Updated: Friday, February 13, 2009
CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2009/02/13/nb-hay-lepreau.html
Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. is paying out $100 million in extra costs for
delays with nuclear refurbishment projects at Point Lepreau, N.B., and the
Bruce plant in Ontario.Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. is paying out $100
million in extra costs for delays with nuclear refurbishment projects at
Point Lepreau, N.B., and the Bruce plant in Ontario.
Delays in the $1.4-billion refurbishment of the Point Lepreau, N.B.,
nuclear power plant are hitting Canadians in the wallet, according to new
documents released by the federal government.
The Treasury Board of Canada reported Thursday that Atomic Energy of Canada
Ltd. is paying $100 million to cover the cost associated with delays at two
nuclear refurbishment projects. The federal Crown corporation is also
running late on the refurbishment of a Candu reactor at the Bruce complex
near Lake Huron in Ontario, and now Ottawa is budgeting extra money in its
latest batch of supplementary estimates.
It's not clear how much of the $100 million is to cover the Point Lepreau
delays and how much is for the Ontario project.
David Hay, the president and chief executive officer of NB Power, has
estimated that a four-month delay at Point Lepreau could cost the utility
upward of $90 million.
AECL is required to pay penalties to NB Power for any delays at Point
Lepreau, which was a key part of the refurbishment agreement in 2005.
Hay said the penalties protect New Brunswickers from higher delay costs.
"My view was I negotiated it on behalf of New Brunswick taxpayers," Hay
told reporters on Friday.
"And do they have some element towards federal responsibility? Of course.
When we hired AECL, everybody knew that. But we're getting a pretty good
share of it."
This is the first Candu-6 reactor refurbishment project, which is expected
to extend the life of Atlantic Canada's only nuclear power plant by 25 to
30 years. AECL is hoping to market these refurbishment projects to other
Candu-6 reactor facilities around the world.
The Point Lepreau project was supposed to be finished at the end of
September, but now it may take until Christmas or later.
Norman Rubin of the Toronto-based environmental group Energy Probe said
it's unacceptable to not know how that money will be divided up when
taxpayers are footing the bill.
"The sad thing here is that you and I and all of your listeners have signed
on ... to cover AECL's penalties and overruns, but we're not allowed to
look at the contract that triggers those penalties and costs for overruns,"
Rubin said.
Rubin said if this happened in a private company, heads would roll.
JATAM (Jaringan Advokasi Tambang/Mining Advocacy Network)
www.jatam.org
www.minesandcommunities.org
www.frederictonpeace.org
Thousands of pages of documents detailing the federal government's handling of this summer's listeria outbreak are being withheld.
The Star and the CBC are seeking the records, which include emails sent between officials with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), Maple Leaf Foods and the City of Toronto, through an access to information request.
The CFIA has imposed extensions of a year or more on top of the normal 30-day deadline for responding to such requests.
Citing the sheer volume of documents requested, the department says it is short-staffed and can't produce the information any faster.
APPELLANT |
|
RICHARD A. HARRIS APPELANT | |
- and - |
|
- et - | |
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF THEPROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK, as represented by the MINISTER OF TRANSPORTATION RESPONDENT |
|
SA MAJESTÉ LA REINE DU CHEF DU NOUVEAU-BRUNSWICK, représentée par le MINISTRE DES TRANSPORTS
INTIMÉE | |
Harris v. The Queen as Represented by the Minister of Transportation, 2008 NBCA 82 |
|
Harris c. La Reine, représentée par le ministre des Transports, 2008 NBCA 82 | |
CORAM: The Honourable Justice Larlee The Honourable Justice Richard The Honourable Justice Quigg |
|
CORAM : L’honorable juge Larlee L’honorable juge Richard L’honorable juge Quigg | |
Appeal from a decision of the Court of Queen's Bench: June 3, 2005 |
|
Appel d’une décision de la Cour du Banc de la Reine : Le 3 juin 2005 | |
Look at what i was paid for this property in back of two legal size building lots Judge David Russell Quotes 2005 [56] Mr. Carter correctly utilized the Direct Comparison Approach and correctly analyzed available market data. Approximately 86.5% of the parent lot remains for future development with substantial access to the Broad Road. I conclude the value placed on the expropriated portion of the parent lot by Mr. Carter is appropriate as is his finding there was no injurious affection. The value of the H.A.R. lands taken is, therefore, $2726.00. ? mr Carter also did a report that said this same property H.A.R. Lands was $ 36,000.00 ? why did not Douglas Caldwell or Representation of Parties at Trial: Douglas A. Caldwell, Q.C. ) for the Applicants. Robert H. Pineo, Esq. ) ) David Eidt, Esq. ) for the Respondent. John S Raymond for the tax payer payer ? take look at my lawyers bill to the Government government $ 212,000.00 so why did not the lawyers not ask for this edvient to be put forth in Court in March of 2005 when they be came a ware of this report ? for $36,000.00 ? so why did these apple Judges not give me relief in this hearing of the above ?? i would guest ? that Caldwell & pineo would not had a chance to get any of the Taxpayer money ? and my Action on the Goodwin matter would of been in my favors ? so what left for me now ??????
History of Case: |
|
Historique de la cause : | |
Decision under appeal: 2005 NBQB 197 (CanLII), 2005 NBQB 197 |
|
Décision frappée d’appel : | |
Preliminary or incidental proceedings: N/A |
|
Procédures préliminaires ou accessoires : s.o. | |
Appeal heard: October 15, 2008 |
|
Appel entendu : Le 15 octobre 2008 | |
Judgment rendered: November 20, 2008 |
|
Jugement rendu : Le 20 novembre 2008 | |
Reasons for judgment by: The Honourable Justice Larlee
|
|
Motifs de jugement : L’honorable juge Larlee | |
Concurred in by: The Honourable Justice Richard The Honourable Justice Quigg
|
| Souscrivent aux motifs : L’honorable juge Richard L’honorable juge Quigg | |
Counsel at hearing:
For the appellant: David H. Dunsmuir
For the respondent: David D. Eidt
|
|
Avocats à l’audience :
Pour l’appelant : David H. Dunsmuir
Pour l’intimée : David D. Eidt
| |
THE COURT
The appeal is dismissed with costs of $3,500. |
|
LA COUR
Rejette l’appel avec dépens de 3 500 $. |
The judgment of the Court was delivered by
LARLEE, J.A.
[1] The appellant, Richard Harris, appeals one aspect of a decision of the Court of Queen’s Bench, which fixed compensation pursuant to theExpropriation Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. E-14, for a partial taking of land for a highway widening project. The decision is reported at2005 NBQB 197 (CanLII), (2005), 283 N.B.R. (2d) 184, [2005] N.B.J. No. 220 (QL), 2005 NBQB 197.
[2] The respondent argues that Mr. Harris cannot maintain an appeal because the land that is the subject of this appeal was owned at the time of the expropriation by H.A.R. Construction Limited, Mr. Harris’ corporation. Section 1 of the Act defines owner as including “… any person holding an estate, easement, license or other right or interest in, to, over or affecting land.” The duty of a statutory authority to compensate is found at Part II, s. 25 of theAct:
Where land is expropriated or injuriously affected, or where property other than land is taken, interfered with or injured under authority of a statute that requires compensation to be paid, the statutory authority shall pay each owner compensation determined in accordance with this Part.
[Emphasis added.]
[3] Section 31(1) of the Act provides that where a statutory authority and an owner have not agreed upon compensation payable under the Act in respect of the expropriation or injurious affection authorized by the Act, either the statutory authority or the owner may apply to the Court of Queen’s Bench to settle any dispute between them by serving upon the other of them and the Court a notice of arbitration.
[4] Section 31(3) of the Act provides that a notice of arbitration shall state the name of the owner. The notice of arbitration named both H.A.R. Construction Limited and Richard Harris as owners. The Act does not differentiate between corporations and natural persons as owners. The style of cause in the application named H.A.R. Construction Limited, Richard Harris, and Richard James Joseph Harris as applicants. H.A.R. Construction Limited is not a party to this appeal, yet the land in question in this appeal, Lot 97-3 (part of PID #60047644, DOT Plans 12-2-0036 and 12-2-0037), is land in which H.A.R. Construction Limited held “… an estate, easement, licence or other right or interest in, to, over or affecting land” within the meaning of owner under the Act. There was no evidence before the Court, on the hearing of the arbitration, that Mr. Harris had any such interest in the land in question. The evidence is that after the expropriation, the land was transferred by deed on December 13, 1999, from H.A.R. Construction Limited to Mr. Harris’ son, Richard James Joseph Harris. For all intents and purposes the company is no longer in existence. I agree with the respondent that Mr. Harris has no capacity to appeal the decision of the Court of Queen’s Bench in place of H.A.R. Construction Limited. Therefore, this Court is without jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and I would dismiss it.
[5] That said I would have dismissed the appeal, in any event, on the merits. I am of the view that the application judge did not make a palpable and overriding error in coming to his decision. Briefly, here are the reasons.
[6] In 1993, Mr. Harris and H.A.R. Construction Limited acquired a 12.66-hectare parcel of land for $25,000. In December of 1996, the Department of Transportation advised Mr. Harris by letter that it intended to survey the lands for possible use in the construction of the new Trans-Canada Highway. In January of 1997, Mr. Harris filed a plan to further subdivide the land, but the Rural Planning District Commission refused approval of the plan. In September of 1997, the Province sent a Notice of Intention to Expropriate, and repeatedly revised the amount offered for the parcels to be taken, based on appraisal reports and reflecting “the development potential of the property.” On June 20, 2000, Mr. Harris filed a Notice of Arbitration, claiming $909,614.65 for loss of investment, loss of future income, and remediation costs.
[7] A number of parcels of land were involved in this expropriation. The application judge quantified each parcel of land, and awarded, for the land itself and as reimbursement for site preparation work, site clean-up work, and costs of a culvert, $52,846.65 plus interest, less the $20,726.00 the respondent had already paid. With respect to the parcel of land that is the subject of this appeal, Lot 97-3, the application judge rejected Mr. Harris’ claim for business loss, and held that the subdivision plan had been “prepared to bolster his claim for compensation in face of the impending expropriation.” He found that the value of the land taken was $2,726.
[8] In his decision, the application judge identified and applied the principles that govern an assessment of this type. Specifically, he used the comparative sales or market data approach to valuation instead of the land development subdivision approach. In rejecting the latter method he relied on Eric Todd, The Law of Expropriation and Compensation in Canada, 2nd ed. (Toronto: Carswell, 1992) at 218-19; R.P.B. Construction Ltée. v. Nouveau-Brunswick (Ministre des Transports) 
reflex, (1995), 168 N.B.R. (2d) 365 (Q.B.), [1995] N.B.J. No. 519 (QL) and Sutherland v.Langley (Township) (1997), 39 M.P.L.R. (2d) 277 (B.C.S.C.), [1997] B.C.J. No. 1716 (QL). See also Maguire v. Province of New Brunswick(1976), 13 N.B.R. (2d) 624, rev’d on other grounds (1976), 16 N.B.R. (2d) 189 (C.A.), [1976] N.B.J. No. 249 (QL).
[9] The application judge assessed the evidence, accepted the evidence of certain experts, and made findings of fact that are supported by that evidence. I am unable to discern any error that would justify appellate intervention, and in fact, am in substantial agreement with the reasons given by the application judge.
[10] For the reasons set out in paragraphs 1-4, I would dismiss the appeal and order costs of $3,500 can you be leave this could be going on in Canada >/.... ??? send your story to me.
c
%5BDB%5D.jpg)
TEXTAREA_ID
