VOL. XVIII.]; EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. 51 HIS MAJESTY THE KING, ox THE INFORMATION 1916 OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF CANADA, Feb. 21. PLAINTIFF, AND JOSEPH GRIFFIN, DEFENDANT. Expropriation—Compensation—Farm—Valuation— Quantity survey method. The "quantity survey method" does not apply to the valuation of farm property as the basis of compensation in an expropriation thereof by the Crown. The best guide is the market value of the property as a whole, as shewn by the prices of similar properties in the immediate neighbourhood when acquired for similar purposes. I NFORMATION for the vesting of land and compensation therefor in an expropriation by the Crown. Tried before the Honourable Mr. Justice Audette, at Quebec, February 15, 16, 18, 19, 1916. G. G. Stuart, K.C., and William Amyot, for plaintiff. L. A. Cannon, K.C., for defendant. AUDETTE, J. (February 21, 1916) delivered judgment. This is an information exhibited by the Attorney- General of Canada, whereby it appears, inter alia, 4 that certain lands belonging to the defendant were taken and expropriated by the Crown, under the provisions of the Expropriation Act, for the purposes of "The Valcartier Training Camp," a public work of Canada, by depositing, on September 15th,
52 EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. [VOL. XVIII. 1916 1913, a plan and description of such lands in the THE KING V. office of the Registrar of Deeds for the County or GRIFFIN. Registration Division of Quebec. Reasons for Judgment. While this property was expropriated in Septem-ber, 1913, the defendant was allowed to remain in possession after that date for a long period of time, as will be hereafter mentioned. The Crown, by the amended information, offers the sum of $4,500. The defendant, by his plea, claims the sum of $9,895. On behalf of the defendant, witness Hayes valued the land and buildings at the sum of $8,280; witness Maher valued the same at $9,500; and witness King valued the land alone at $6,050 exclusive of the buildings, because he had been asked by the defendant not to do so. All of these valuations are inclusive of the lake. Witness King bought in Valcartier, in 1904, a 320-acre farm for $400, and sold it in 1911 or 1912 for $1,200. There is also on behalf of the defence evidence with respect to the lake, the buildings, and the masonry—together with the evidence of the defendant, and that of his wife, touching the loss and damage resulting from the expropriation. It may be said in connection with the evidence adduced on behalf of the defendant, that to arrive at such valuation, the witnesses proceeded upon a wrong basis, as even admitted by witness Hayes when he said he never valued land in that way before. Indeed, the method followed with respect to the whole evidence adduced by the defence has practically been the "quantity survey method", a method usually followed in cases of mergers of companies only,—endeavouring to arrive at the intrinsic value of the farms and the buildings, and not at their
VOL. XVIII.] EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. 53 • market value. (The King v.. Manuel,' c on 1 916 firmed on appeal to the Supreme . Court of Txe KING Canada) . That evidence proceeds by valuing GRIFFIN. many acres in severalty at so much, the 1 Ju 4= d gme r nt. --bui i l l d d i i n n g g s s at so much, the chimney in the building at so much, the value of the foundation of each building, the fencing, the well, etc. Farmers, when valuing, buying or selling -a farm, are in - the habit of treating the property as a whole, and not by thus segregating the acieage in severalty, and separating the value of the bûildings, the chimney, the carpentry, masonry of every kind and the well. An inflation of the true value of the farm, per se, must very naturally result from this unusual method of valuation, which is a departure from the usual course. On behalf of the Crown, witness Colonel William McBain, valuing the farm. as a whole, says it would not be possible to find a purchaser for a price beyond $2,400 for this farm, including the small lake. He also produced as Exhibit No. 2, a list of 31 properties purchased by him at Valcartier, for the purposes of the camp, some of them being in the h mediate neighbourhood of this .defendant's property, at an average price of between $16.57 and $17 per acre. The prices thus paid afford the best test and the safest starting point for the present . enquiry into the • market price of the present property. Dodge v. The King; 2 Fitzpatrick v. Town of New : Liskeard.8 Witness Captain Arthur McBain values the farm and buildings, in 1913, at the sum of between $1,800 to $2,000. On September 9th, 1913., this last witness, 1 15 Can. Ex. 381, 25 D.L.R. 626. 2 38 Can. S.C.R. 149. 3 13 O.W.R. 806.
54 EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. [VOL. XVIII. 1916 accompanied by James Barry, called on• the defend-THE KING V. ant for the purpose of opening negotiations for the GRIFFIN. purchase of this property, and Griffin then offered Reasons for Judgment. to sell for the sum of $2,600, stating that the farm was worth $2,000 and the lake $600. An option was not then taken, because, witness McBain says, it was considered too high at $2,600. The defendant's property is an average farm at Valcartier. The soil is very sandy. • Lot No. 30 was bequeathed to him by his father in 1890, and he bought lot No. 31 in 1883 for the sum of $100. For the farm and the buildings and all the dependencies valued as a whole, (The Ding v. Kendatl, 1 affirmed on appeal), I will allow $30 an acre, which is a high price for farms in the locality, making, for the 126 ' acres, the sum of $3,780. Coming to the valuation of the lake, a very small lake indeed, with part of it extending on the adjoining farm, one must be guarded against being carried away by the exaggerated valuations of some of the witnesses, who regard the lake as a sporting and fishing resort. The lake is too small for such purposes. It must, however, ' be admitted, that such a lake,. small as it is, is of a most appreciable value on a farm, for watering cattle and other general purposes. It is somewhat better than the Woodlock Lake; and to the $30 an'acre already allowed, I will add $5 (instead of $4 as in the Woodlock case) an acre as representing the additional value given to the farm by such lake, amounting to the sum of $630,—a sum even in excess of what the defendant valued it before there was any question of expropriation, when interviewed by witnesses McBain and Barry. 114 Can. Ex. 71; 8 D.L.R. 900.
VOL. XVIII.] EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. 55 The lands in question became vested in the Crown pais on September 15th, 1913, but the defendant was al- THE• ti'NG lowed to remain in possession fora long period be- GR`FFIN' y.ond that date: He had his full crop in 1913, with- Ju adgmen r out any interference whatsoever. He' had most of his crop. in 1914, but that year he lost some oats, potatoes, turnips, turkeys, clover seed, etc., etc., and suffered some damages to his furniture Occasioned by the moving, and incurred expenses with respect to moving. It is perhaps well to bear in mind ,the defendant also owned a farm of 270 acres at about one mile and a quarter to one mile and a half from the present property, where he could have gone at any time after the expropriation, but he chose to remain on the farm, and even resided in his house up to January 25th, 1916. He did not have the use of his farm after September 14th, 1914, but had the use of the buildings up to January 25th, 1916, and at times the use of pasture for his cattle. It is unnecessary to go into the details of the damages claimed and which obviously result from his having remained on' the property, by the tolerance of the Crown, after the date of the expropriation, excepting, however, the question of moving. And it is next to impossible to distinguish and segregate from these damages what is really referable to the grace and 'bounty of the Crown, from 'what may actually constitute a right to compensation,—and fur.. . ther, to segregate the value of the land from that of the buildings and the pasture with a different date from which interest should run. Therefore, it is • thought advisable to allow interest on the total amount recovered from the date of the expropriation in lieu and in the nature of such damages. The allowanc e of the interest for the full period is of
56 EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. [VOL. XVIII. 1916 more benefit to the defendant than the allowance of THE KING the damages coming within a legal scope. GRIFFIN. Emma for With respect to the notice to quit served upon the judgment, defendant in September, 1914, I will refer to what I have already said in the Woodlock case, it being unnecessary to repeat here what has already been said upon this question. In recapitulation, I may state the assessment of the compensation, as follows : For the farm, including the buildings there- on erected, an average price of $30 an acre for the 126 acres $3,780.00 The lake, or part of a lake—the additional value of $5 an acre upon the whole farm. 630.00 $4,410.00 To which should be added 10 per cent. for the compulsory taking, namely, the sum of .$ 441.00 Making the total sum of $4,851.00 with interest thereon from the 15th day of Septem-ber, 1913. The interest alone would represent a sum of about $590, which will more than cover the damages. There will be judgment as follows : 1. The lands expropriated herein are declared vested in the Crown, from September 15th, 1913. 2. The compensation for the land and property so expropriated, with all damages resulting from the expropriation, is hereby fixed at the sum of $4,851, with interest thereon from September 15th, 1913, to the date hereof. 3. The defendant is entitled to recover from and be paid by the plaintiff the said sum of $4,851, with
VOL. XVIII.] EXCHEQUER COURT . REPORTS. 57 interest as above mentioned, .upon giving to the 1916 . Crown a good and sufficient title, free from all en- THE ING cumbrances 'whatsoever, the whole in full satisfac- GRIFFIN. tion for the land taken and all damages resulting Judgments from the expropriation. 4. The defendant is also entitled to his costs. Judgment accordingly. Solicitors for plaintiff : Drouin & Drouin. Solicitors for defendant: Taschereau, Roy, Cannon & Parent.
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.