OTTAWA/TRADITIONAL, UNCEDED TERRITORY OF THE ALGONQUIN ANISHNAABEG PEOPLE – Ecojustice is pleased by the Supreme Court of Canada’s (SCC) ruling confirming that legitimate environmental restrictions on land use must be considered when setting compensation awarded to landowners in constructive expropriation cases.
Ecojustice intervened in St. John’s v. Wallace Lynch, et al. to ensure that governments can make land use planning decisions that protect the environment without fear they’ll owe windfall compensations to private landowners.
Following the decision, Ecojustice lawyer, Randy Christensen said:
“We are celebrating the Supreme Court of Canada’s unanimous ruling to uphold the government’s ability to make decisions in the public interest, including to protect the environment and ensure a community’s right to safe, clean drinking water.
“Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Martin determined that the market value assessment for the property at issue must take into account the fact that the watershed zoning limits use of the property to discretionary agriculture, forestry and public utility. To ignore the watershed zoning would compensate the Lynch family for something they never would have had absent the expropriation: unencumbered land to develop residential housing.
“The case examined how the government should determine the compensation value it owes to a private property owner once a court determines it has constructively expropriated the owner’s property through regulation.
“This decision confirms property rights must be balanced with the government’s ability to make land use decisions in the public interest. Private landowners and corporations should not reap windfall compensation because the government made a sound environmental decision that protects the environment and communities.
“We are hopeful that this decision will give governments across the country the power to put the interests of communities and environmental safety before private profits.”
BACKGROUND
- The Lynch family was prevented from developing their property after it was subjected to 1994 regulations designed to preserve the watershed that provides drinking water for the City of St. John’s.
- The Lynch family believed the property should be valued as if no regulations prevented development.
- In 2013, the City denied an application for a residential subdivision on the Lynch property, ultimately leading to the finding of a constructive expropriation.
- In a subsequent decision in 2022, the NFLD Court of Appeal held that the compensation owed to the Lynches must be assessed without regard to the watershed zoning that applied to the property prior to the constructive taking; the compensation should be assessed as if the property had no land use zoning restrictions whatsoever.
- On May 10, 2024 the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously determined that the market value assessment for the property at issue must take into account the fact that the watershed zoning limits use of the property to discretionary agriculture, forestry and public utility. To ignore the watershed zoning would compensate the Lynch family for something they never would have had absent the expropriation: unencumbered land to develop residential housing.
