The Rural Voice, 1992-10, Page 18RIPLEY
ELEVATORS
a division of
Thompson Feed & Supply
Buyers of
CORN
SOYBEANS
Elevator 519-395-5959
Mill 519-395-5955
Res. 519-395-5550
Manager
Bob Thompson
Ripley
FARM
TIRES
Good selection of Duals
Large stock of all brands
of passenger,
truck & farm
tires
23° Ri
'On Farm Service'
Two fully equipped service trucks
Willits
Tire Service
Lucknow
519-528-2103
14 THE RURAL VOICE
Agrilaw
Expropriation — what am I entitled to?
The Ontario Expropriation Act en-
titles the owner of expropriated lands
to be compensated not only for the
market value of the land, but also for
"disturbance" and "injurious affection"
damages. What
are these
damages and how
may they be
recovered?
"Disturbance"
damages are relo-
cation and disrup-
tion costs incur-
red by an owner
resulting from an
expropriation.
Such costs may
include not only
an allowance to
compensate for
inconvenience
and the cost of
finding a replacement residence, but
may also include an allowance for
improvements not reflected in the
market value of the land; moving
costs; and legal, survey and other
expenses incurred in acquiring
replacement premises. Where the
expropriation is only a partial taking
of the owner's lands, the owner may
recover costs related to the construc-
tion activity on the expropriated lands.
For example, the cleanup costs of an
irrigation pond necessitated by
construction of a hydro -electric
transmission line have been held to be
recoverable as "disturbance" damages.
Damages for "injurious affection"
are to compensate the owner for any
reduction in market value for the re-
maining lands which results from eith-
er the expropriation itself, construc-
tion on the expropriated lands, or the
use to which the expropriated lands is
then put by the expropriating authori-
ty. In addition, such damages may in-
clude compensation for health impacts
and business loss from construction or
use of the expropriated lands by the
expropriating authority. Even a
person whose land is not expropriated
may be entitled to damages for "injur-
ious affection" resulting from the con-
struction activities of the expropriat-
ing authority.
Ontario courts have frequently
been required to determine what
losses are properly recoverable as "in-
jurious affection". In a case resulting
from the construction of a 140 foot
hydro -electric transmission tower
within 150 feet of a farmhouse, the
landowner claimed damages for
"injurious affection", including the
reduction in the quiet enjoyment and
aesthetic value to the remaining lands;
the cost of re -locating the farmhouse
elsewhere on the farm; and anxiety
resulting from the proximity of the
hydro -electric transmission line. The
evidence relating to the owner's claim
was summarized as follows:
"The claimants testify that the tow-
er is unsightly and can be readily
seen from the bedroom and living
room windows. They also claim
that the sounds emanating from the
towers are a nuisance because of
the sparking and sizzling of the
wires and illumination of the insu-
lators, particularly in cold and
damp weather. They state that
there has been greater interference
with television and radio reception
which continued even after the pur-
chase of a new television set. They
have complained to the Department
of Transport about the crackling of
the radio and television interfer-
ence in foggy and misty weather.
They also express the concern and
fear that the tower might fall on
their house. In relation to this
latter claim, they filed a newspaper
clipping showing that there have
been occasions when towers have
fallen. There was also filed ... a
response from the Ontario Hydro
Director of Systems Maintenance,
in answer to a query about the
available statistical data of toppled
hydro towers over the years. The
Director states in his letter that,
`failures were due to tornadoes,
high winds, or severe ice and sleet
conditions exceeding the loading
criteria for which the towers were
designed. Usually, under these
conditions, there is extensive dam-
age to the surrounding countryside,
including any farm buildings in the
path of the storm'. This statistical
data indicates, although the top-
pling over of hydro towers is not a
yearly event, it is certainly not
unusual and could be a cause for
some concern."
In the result, the Board determined