Charles,
As I thought, private property is not protected under the
constitution but is under common law in Canada. The common law
and, I believe statute law (but not constitutional law), requires
governments to pay compensation at "market value".
Paul Phillips
Date sent: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 17:11:13 -0500
From: "Charles Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [PEN-L:8755] Takings (Canada)
Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/06/01 04:53PM >>>
> Nothing about eminent domain allows the state to take without compensation.
>
> (((((((((
>
> CB: Ergo, as I said, since in Canada , evidently, there is no constitutional
>provision corresponding to our Fifth Amendment provision against taking private
>property without just compensation ( eminent domain ), the government can take
>without compensation, that would be super eminent domain,
i.e. expropriation.
>
> ((((((((
>
>
> Take involuntarily, yes, but not without compensation. It would be amazing
> if a doctrine descended from the common law showed such disregard of rights
> to private property and land first of all.
>
> ((((((((
>
> CB: That's right, and that's why I said what I said. In other words, where in
>Canadian law is the
protection of private property that corresponds to the principle of just compensation
in U.S. emi
nent domain or Fifth Amendment law ?
>
> ((((((
>
>
> The barons wouldn't have liked
> _that_ one bit. Btw, look at the entry on ED in Black's, doesn't say
> anything about no compensation. --jks
>
> (((((((
>
> CB: As I said, ED implies just compensation for a taking, which is the protection in
>it of privat
e property. If in Canada, as your correspondent said
> "a multitiude of corporations/plaintiffs have tried to argue for
> > >property
> > >rights in Canadian constitutional law and they have always lost,"> >
>
> how _are_ private property rights protected in Canada ? Why didn't the corporations
>argue common
law, where that protection must be ?
>
>
> >From: "Charles Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: [PEN-L:8745] Re: Takings (Canada)
> >Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 16:07:25 -0500
> >
> >This answer implies that the Canadian government has more than eminent
> >domain, i.e. can take property without compensation.
> >
> >CB
> >
> > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/02/01 08:16PM >>>
> >A Canadian lawyer friens responds thus to the question about takings in
> >Canada, adding that there is a law of eminent domain on the provincial
> >level:
> >
> >There is *no*
> > >constitutional provision. The Trudeau (quasi-social democratic or at
> >least
> > >Keynesian) Charter of Rights adopted in 1982 (Canada had no constitution
> > >before then except for the early 1960s Bill of Rights that was largely
> > >ignored) does *not* include property rights. Case law is very clear on
> > >that.
> > >However, there may be provincial or federal legislation depending on the
> > >jurisdiction involved. That is a much more complex question and I would
> > >need
> > >to do research to answer that. Sorry for such a vague answer but I can
> >say
> > >that a multitiude of corporations/plaintiffs have tried to argue for
> > >property
> > >rights in Canadian constitutional law and they have always lost.
> > >
> > >Ravi
> > >
> > >I have applied for an exemption from paying insurance and therefore
> >cannot
> > >give legal advice. This is legal information and not legal advice (boring
> > >disclaimer).
> > >
> > >Justin Schwartz wrote:
> > >
> > > > The question was posed whether Canadian law includes something like
> >the
> > >US
> > > > Constitution's Takings Clause, prohibiting taking of private property
> > >for
> > > > public use without just compensation. I thought you would know. --jks
> > > >
>
