evandyk said:
Governments can actually steamroll private ownership. It may or may not be a good idea to do it in any specific case, but your private interests can be steamrolled by government at any time if it follows the appropriate process (which at its most basic, is passing a law through the elected legislature).

The government could absolutely shut down the sugar plant or Lafarge if it wanted to. It could even do it without paying the owners anything, if it wanted to. Expropriation only requires compensation at fair market value because a law says it does. That law can be rewritten overnight. Might be a really bad idea if you're trying to have people invest in your economy, but they absolutely can do it.
Click to expand...
One of the principles of modern government is that it operates with the consent of the governed. If you dispossess citizens who have broken no law and pay no compensation, other people who hold assets will start thinking it might happen to them, and that the government is generally not to be expected to behave equitably.

Federal Expropriation Act. Compensation is discussed at section 25

Expropriation Act

Federal laws of Canada
laws-lois.justice.gc.ca laws-lois.justice.gc.ca
 
evandyk said:
Governments can actually steamroll private ownership. It may or may not be a good idea to do it in any specific case, but your private interests can be steamrolled by government at any time if it follows the appropriate process (which at its most basic, is passing a law through the elected legislature).

The government could absolutely shut down the sugar plant or Lafarge if it wanted to. It could even do it without paying the owners anything, if it wanted to. Expropriation only requires compensation at fair market value because a law says it does. That law can be rewritten overnight. Might be a really bad idea if you're trying to have people invest in your economy, but they absolutely can do it.
Click to expand...
Well, it would be an interesting exercise in a civics or political science course. In addition the the very accurate 'consent of the governed' post, while it is somewhat true that a government can pass pretty much any legislation it wants, there is no guarantee that said legislation would survive.

Setting aside outright state seizure for the moment, an 'expropriating authority' (as defined) can expropriate property in exercise of its statutory authority. For example, the MTO can expropriate to build a highway. I suppose a government could give itself the authority to expropriate property 'just cuz', whether it would survive a court challenge would likely outlive us all. If the State were to simply seize private property then turn around and sell it to a developer, the court case would likely outlive the planet. Or perhaps not. It would such an egregious piece of legislation the courts might deal with it quite expeditiously. Even before that, the federal government might even grow a pair an exercise its 'disallowance' authority under the Constitution. This is the stuff from countries we read about in the news where most of us would probably prefer not to live.

While property rights aren't specifically addressed in the Charter, Section 26 says:

"The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights and freedoms that exist in Canada."

I'm really not up on SCOC rulings but suspect that there is not a lot of jurisprudence in this area, probably because no government has yet to be stupid enough.
 
lenaitch said:
Well, it would be an interesting exercise in a civics or political science course. In addition the the very accurate 'consent of the governed' post, while it is somewhat true that a government can pass pretty much any legislation it wants, there is no guarantee that said legislation would survive.
Click to expand...

I'm not advocating here......... rather I would seek to point that nominally, through the Greenbelt MZO scandals, the Ford government created billions in paper wealth, it then rescinded that same wealth by statute/regulation, without compensation.

The original Greenbelt, created by Dalton McGuinty did some of the same, in that it did downzone some lands, and precluded upzoning of others, also without compensation.

It is generally accepted law in Canada that governments have the unfettered right to regulate land use.

In the context of an airport, all one needs do is make the current use illegal.

****

That said, nothing so severe need be done. The only commercial airline at Billy Bishop flies primarily or exclusively the Q400; the government can tax their purchase or lease, or apply a new tax for all short-haul flights that would inordinately impact said carrier.

They could also, as the effective force of control of the GTAA, choose to lower the cost of using Pearson such as to make BBTCA noncompetitive. There are so many ways to effect an outcome.

lenaitch said:
While property rights aren't specifically addressed in the Charter, Section 26 says:

"The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights and freedoms that exist in Canada."

I'm really not up on SCOC rulings but suspect that there is not a lot of jurisprudence in this area, probably because no government has yet to be stupid enough.
Click to expand...

I thought I would give a look-see as to other legislation/jurisprudence. I found this of interest:

1730665823151.png


Source: https://www.albertalandinstitute.ca...guide/are-property-rights-protected-in-canada

There was a 2022 Supreme Court ruling involving Halifax and a land assembler/developer in which the SCC ruled in a split decision, 4-3, that there was a basis for a claim of constructive land taking and compensation. But the ruling was only one which ordered that the case go to trial, not one which decided the facts of the case.

Looking at the judges who made the ruling, those who dissented and the current composition of the court, I believe the decision, such as it was, would likely be overturned if it wound up before the SCC again.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
I'm not advocating here......... rather I would seek to point that nominally, through the Greenbelt MZO scandals, the Ford government created billions in paper wealth, it then rescinded that same wealth by statute/regulation, without compensation.

The original Greenbelt, created by Dalton McGuinty did some of the same, in that it did downzone some lands, and precluded upzoning of others, also without compensation.

It is generally accepted law in Canada that governments have the unfettered right to regulate land use.

In the context of an airport, also one needs do is make the current use illegal.

****

That said, nothing so severe need be done. The only commercial airline at Billy Bishop flies only primarily or exclusively the Q400; the government can tax their purchase or lease, or apply a new tax for all short-haul flights that would inordinately impact said carrier.

They could also, as the effective force of control of the GTAA, choose to lower the cost of using Pearson such as to make BBTCA noncompetitive. There are so many ways to effect an outcome.



I thought I would give a look-see as to other legislation/jurisprudence. I found this of interest:

View attachment 609468

Source: https://www.albertalandinstitute.ca...guide/are-property-rights-protected-in-canada

There was a 2022 Supreme Court ruling involving Halifax and a land assembler/developer in which the SCC ruled in a split decision, 4-3, that there was a basis for a claim of constructive land taking and compensation. But the ruling was only one which ordered that the case go to trial, not one which decided the facts of the case.

Looking at the judges who made the ruling, those who dissented and the current composition of the court, I believe the decision, such as it was, would likely be overturned if it wound up before the SCC again.
Click to expand...
Thorough analysis, as always.

Northern Light said:
That said, nothing so severe need be done. The only commercial airline at Billy Bishop flies only primarily or exclusively the Q400; the government can tax their purchase or lease, or apply a new tax for all short-haul flights that would inordinately impact said carrier.
Click to expand...
It would be interesting to see if a government could target one specific business, particularly if it was argued that the tax was punitive. That aircraft is used by several other domestic carriers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_De_Havilland_Canada_Dash_8_operators
 
KingJames said:
YHM is waiting in the wings , no need for Pickering . Extend the proposed High Speed Rail to YHM , and Billy Bihop can surely close down.!
Click to expand...

It's not like we haven't tried passenger air service out of YHM before! Oh hello WestJet, who let you in.

There are challenges with YHM as the GTA's secondary international airport. Just take a look at other cities with more than one International airport. London, NYC, Tokyo, etc. For the vast majority of them the airports are geographically located on the opposite side of the main core of the city, minimizing any overlap of catchment areas. Where as YYZ and YHM are both basically West of Toronto.
 
During the pandemic, the government seized the livelihood of the entire hospitality and travel industry, overnight. The government absolutely has the power to steamroll private interests. The Emergencies Act in every province pretty much gives the government the right to not only seize private property, but also to force private actors to provide services to the government and other people. Of course, they have to declare an emergency, but they can define that however they want. Or just change the legislation to not require an emergency.

When the federal government ordered the freezing and seizure of donations to the convoy in Ottawa, they got in trouble not because they weren't allowed to seize those assets. They got in trouble because they didn't follow the process the legislation set out for doing it. They can just change the legislation if they want to do the same thing next time and get away with it.
 
evandyk said:
During the pandemic, the government seized the livelihood of the entire hospitality and travel industry, overnight. The government absolutely has the power to steamroll private interests. The Emergencies Act in every province pretty much gives the government the right to not only seize private property, but also to force private actors to provide services to the government and other people. Of course, they have to declare an emergency, but they can define that however they want. Or just change the legislation to not require an emergency.

When the federal government ordered the freezing and seizure of donations to the convoy in Ottawa, they got in trouble not because they weren't allowed to seize those assets. They got in trouble because they didn't follow the process the legislation set out for doing it. They can just change the legislation if they want to do the same thing next time and get away with it.
Click to expand...
I love our toilet paper charter.
 
It protects some things very strongly, some things subject to the express will of the legislature (via the notwithstanding clause) and does not protect things that the people who wrote it specifically decided shouldn't be protected.

Over the years, judges have "read in" things that weren't specifically included, but I don't think anyone thinks they will "read in" a right to not have personal property seized if the government passes a law.

There is something that provides a limited amount of protection to your personal property interests, but it does not create any constitutional rights, it creates a right for the government to follow an appropriate process before acting.

www.torkin.com

Revisiting doctrine of 'legitimate expectations' in Canadian administrative law

Procedural fairness is at the core of administrative decision-making. One aspect of natural justice is that if a government actor makes a specific represen...
www.torkin.com
 
Northern Light said:
I'm not advocating here......... rather I would seek to point that nominally, through the Greenbelt MZO scandals, the Ford government created billions in paper wealth, it then rescinded that same wealth by statute/regulation, without compensation.

The original Greenbelt, created by Dalton McGuinty did some of the same, in that it did downzone some lands, and precluded upzoning of others, also without compensation.

It is generally accepted law in Canada that governments have the unfettered right to regulate land use.

In the context of an airport, all one needs do is make the current use illegal.

****

That said, nothing so severe need be done. The only commercial airline at Billy Bishop flies primarily or exclusively the Q400; the government can tax their purchase or lease, or apply a new tax for all short-haul flights that would inordinately impact said carrier.

They could also, as the effective force of control of the GTAA, choose to lower the cost of using Pearson such as to make BBTCA noncompetitive. There are so many ways to effect an outcome.



I thought I would give a look-see as to other legislation/jurisprudence. I found this of interest:

View attachment 609468

Source: https://www.albertalandinstitute.ca...guide/are-property-rights-protected-in-canada

There was a 2022 Supreme Court ruling involving Halifax and a land assembler/developer in which the SCC ruled in a split decision, 4-3, that there was a basis for a claim of constructive land taking and compensation. But the ruling was only one which ordered that the case go to trial, not one which decided the facts of the case.

Looking at the judges who made the ruling, those who dissented and the current composition of the court, I believe the decision, such as it was, would likely be overturned if it wound up before the SCC again.
Click to expand...

I think it depends who wants to do the rezoning. The federal government has constitutional power over aeronautics, so if it wanted the airport to remain, the province / City could likely not rezone the land to prohibit such use.

As for adopting taxes or taking other actions specifically to target operations at Billy Bishop, it is possible, but it could lead to a challenge to the statute for being passed in bad faith or a claim for misfeasance in public office. This was the issue in a seminal case called Roncarelli v. Duplessis. Rarely, if ever, are laws passed with one business in mind.

Ultimately, I'm not sure why this is generating such discussion. There is precisely zero chance that any level of government is going to expropriate the airport or take coercive action. One or more of the parties would simply not renew the Tripartite Agreement at the end of its extension.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top