42 LEXPERT
|
2018
|
WWW.LEXPERT.CA
Schabas, Paul B. Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
(416) 863-4274 paul.schabas@blakes.com
Mr. Schabas is one of Canada's leading media and constitutional lawyers,
arguing many cases before the Supreme Court of Canada. He also represents
clients in complex commercial litigation and arbitrations, criminal,
competition, tax and regulatory cases. He is a past president (treasurer) of
the Law Society of Ontario, and named one of Canada's 25 Most Influential
Lawyers in 2018 and 2011.
Sartorio, Kevin Gowling WLG
(416) 862-4492 kevin.sartorio@gowlingwlg.com
Mr. Sartorio, an IP litigator, is head of the Toronto office's Intellectual
Property Department. A Registered Trademark Agent, and a partner in
the firm since 2007, he has extensive expertise covering all areas of IP
contentious work, including patent, design, trademark, copyright and
trade-secret litigation, as well as opposition proceedings before Canada's
Trademark Opposition Board.
Ryan, André BCF LLP
(514) 397-6931 ar@bcf.ca
Considered by his peers as one of leading litigators of his generation,
Mr. Ryan is head of the BCF Litigation team that numbers more than 65
lawyers. His primary practice areas are complex commercial litigation and
class action defence, administrative law and corporate governance. In 2017,
he was appointed Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers.
Roy, Christian B. Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
(418) 640-5028 christian.roy@nortonrosefulbright.com
Mr. Roy is local chair of the litigation group in the Québec office. His
practice focuses primarily on corporate restructuring, bankruptcy, insolvency
and realization of bank guarantees. His services are often retained by
companies with restructuring needs and by court-appointed officers, financial
institutions, secured and unsecured creditors and purchasers of assets from
distressed companies.
Rowe, Edward C. Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP
(403) 260-7033 erowe@osler.com
Mr. Rowe is a partner in Osler's National Tax Group and leads the tax practice
in the Calgary office. His practice focuses on the settlement of tax disputes,
including the resolution of GAAR assessments with the CRA, and negotiations
with Competent Authority. He has acted as counsel in leading tax cases
before all levels of court and served as a special advisor to Finance on
resource taxation.
Rothstein, LSM, Linda R. Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
(416) 646-4327 linda.rothstein@paliareroland.com
Ms. Rothstein's civil and administrative practice focuses on class actions,
commercial litigation, professional liability, public law, employment and human
rights, judicial reviews and appeals. She is also a mediator and arbitrator.
LEXPERT-RANKED LAWYERS
a declaration of invalidity, which are both rem-
edies that fall within the discretion of the Superior
Court to remedy the abusive nature of the bylaw
in question. In addition, the Supreme Court ruled
that an owner who believes he is the victim of a
disguised expropriation can still claim compensa-
tion for the loss in value of his property, even if the
court rejects the challenge.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
In 1989, the numbered company 2646-8926 Qué-
bec Inc. ("Company") bought a wooded property
in the city of Lorraine (the "City"). e majority
shareholder planned to build a residential subdivi-
sion. In 1991, the City adopted a zoning bylaw and
included more than half of the property in a con-
servation zone. e Company became aware of the
new regulation 10 years later. e Company then
asked the City to amend its bylaw because of the
consequences of the bylaw on its right of property,
but the City's response was negative. e Com-
pany then accused the City of disguised expropria-
tion and went to court in 2007.
e Company asked for the bylaw to be over-
turned and for the City to pay an indemnity for
expropriation. At trial, the judge said the two is-
sues (overturning the bylaw and the indemnity
for expropriation) should be decided separately.
He rejected the request to overturn the bylaw,
because it was made too late. e Court of Ap-
peal disagreed with this and ruled in favour of the
property owner. It said the trial judge should have
thought about whether the bylaw constituted an
abuse of power and intervened, even though the
owner did not act within a reasonable time frame.
e Court of Appeal sent the matter back to the
lower court for a decision on the matter of com-
pensation. e City appealed.
MATTER SIGNIFICANCE AND GUIDANCE
In this case, the 16-year period from the date on
which the applicant was presumed to have had
knowledge of the regulation, i.e., the date on
which it came into force, was not considered to be
a reasonable period. at said, the Supreme Court
provided important guidance that more clearly de-
fines the scope of the concept of disguised expro-
priation in Québec law.
On the one hand, the Supreme Court of Cana-
da proposed a simpler definition than what it had
proposed in the common-law decision Canadian
Pacific Railway v. Vancouver (City of), 2006 SCC
227. ere, the Supreme Court decided that in or-
der to constitute a disguised expropriation it was
necessary for the public body to have acquired a
beneficial interest in the property that is the sub-
ject of the disguised expropriation. In the Lor-
raine matter, it defines disguised expropriation
under Québec law more simply: as a municipal
