{"id":3975,"date":"2022-10-25T14:39:50","date_gmt":"2022-10-25T18:39:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/deals-cases\/supreme-court-of-canada-clarifies-on-interpretation-of-the-test-for-constructive-takings-in-expropriation-case\/"},"modified":"2025-09-19T18:45:58","modified_gmt":"2025-09-19T22:45:58","slug":"supreme-court-of-canada-clarifies-on-interpretation-of-the-test-for-constructive-takings-in-expropriation-case","status":"publish","type":"deals-cases","link":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/deals-cases\/supreme-court-of-canada-clarifies-on-interpretation-of-the-test-for-constructive-takings-in-expropriation-case\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court of Canada clarifies on interpretation of the test for constructive takings in expropriation case"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Annapolis Group Inc. v. Halifax Regional Municipality (2022 SCC 36)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a majority decision held on October 21, 2022, the Supreme Court of Canada allowed an appeal in favour of Annapolis Group (\u201cAnnapolis\u201d), a land owner suing the Halifax Regional Municipality (\u201cHalifax\u201d), alleging that the municipality\u2019s regulatory measures have deprived it of all reasonable or economic uses of its land, resulting in constructive taking without compensation. The Attorney General of Canada, Attorney General of Ontario, Attorney General of Nova Scotia, Attorney General of British Columbia, Canadian Constitution Foundation, Ontario Landowners Association, Canadian Home Builders\u2019 Association and Ecojustice Canada Society acted as interveners in the case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the 1950s, Annapolis started buying lands in Halifax, Nova Scotia with plans to develop and resell the property, acquiring 965 acres of land overtime. In 2006, Halifax adopted a planning strategy for land development in the municipality, including the lands owned by Annapolis (the \u201cLands\u201d), over a 25-year period. Halifax\u2019s planning strategy reserved a portion of the Lands for a public park with the rest zoned for \u201cserviced development\u201d, such as residential neighbourhoods. For serviced development to occur, Halifax must adopt a resolution authorizing a \u201csecondary planning process\u201d and make an amendment to the land use by-law. Starting in 2007, Annapolis made several unsuccessful attempts to develop the Lands. Ultimately, by resolution in 2016, Halifax refused to initiate the secondary planning process, and Annapolis sued the municipality, alleging that Halifax had expropriated private property for a public park which amounted to a constructive taking as part of its suit, among other claims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2019, Halifax sought summary dismissal of Annapolis\u2019 constructive taking claim, which was eventually ruled in favour of Annapolis and appealed by Halifax. At the Court of Appeal, it was held that Annapolis\u2019 constructive taking claim did not have a reasonable chance of success as required by Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Vancouver (City)<\/em>. The Court of Appeal subsequently struck the claim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In review of the case, a majority of the Supreme Court found that Annapolis\u2019 claim of constructive taking raises disputed issues of fact that must be decided at trial, based on the constructive taking test set out in Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Vancouver (City).<\/em> The Court found two parts to the test for establishing a constructive taking:<\/p>\n\n\n\n