les 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
ous. --jks
>From: "Charles Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: [PEN-L:8755] Takings (Canada)
>Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 17:11:13 -0500
>
>
>
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/06/01 04:53PM >&
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]
>
>
> >>> [EMA
ous. --jks
>From: "Charles Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: [PEN-L:8755] Takings (Canada)
>Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 17:11:13 -0500
>
>
>
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/06/01 04:53P
? 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
have liked
_that_ one bit. Btw, look at the entry on ED in Black's, doesn't say
anything about no compensation. --jks
>From: "Charles Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: [PEN-L:8745] Re: Taking
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
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 h
