Expropriation Act extracts 15 Dec 99 (Questions)

8/14/2019 Expropriation Act extracts 15 Dec 99 (Questions)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/expropriation-act-extracts-15-dec-99-questions 1/5

Are your submissions and that of Mr. Goodwin at present addressing the subject of

market value, personal and business damages or do you have to take the personal and business damage case separately to Court? Can D.O.T. settle all matters or are they

restricted in what they have the power to settle and personal and business damages have

to go to court.

There was damage done by ATCO, to property that has not been taken. ATCO was on

this property as contractor for MRDC who in turn was contractor for D.O.T. I have pictures of water run off and also the stumpage that was dumped illegally on my land

outside the bullpen area. Does the above apply to my case with ATCO?

Does the above apply to me or is this between D.O.T. and the courts?

Does this mean court MAY hear a case that D.O.T. cannot settle?



Why was I not offered other similar land? I spoke to Mr. Tidd about this.

Does this apply to me? Considering this was to be the site of my future home? Now I

have to purchase land some other place. Actually taking this land and my not being able

to sell my home was a financial loss to me. Under what section do I claim for the loss on

my home? You mentioned it in your draft submission. I would like to know under whatsection does this apply.

What do they mean by excepting compensation for business loss?

What time limit are they talking about here?

Had D.O.T. agreed in WRITING that the best use of the land is subdivision?

It is important to note that not only did I loose my future subdivision I also lost a

place where I could have built my new home. Now I will have to find another

location to build.



Was this done in a timely fashion? I only have draft copies addressed to

Sheldon Lee and sent to me by fax from Mr. Logan.

Footnote: If they had put in culvert I would have had to pay back probably if they

did not take all the land.

Footnote: I do not think I will worry about this now.



Long way down the road but what date would apply here? Damages started when

they refused my subdivision plan.

Note: When they want money they state SHALL not may.

Is there any difference between reasonably incurred and reasonable cost? It states

shall pay cost reasonably incurred not reasonable cost. With the first appraisals

being screwed up and other appraisers not wanting to do the full thing I would

assume this cost was reasonably incurred. How much money was wasted with other

appraisals prior to Goodwin by not being reasonable and doing it right the first

time.

That means that the Statutory Authority can make a final offer before court date

and if we go to court and do not get more then they offered us at the last minute the

court shall determine what are reasonable cost. So when this goes to court we will

not be looking at the $40,000.00 offer or any future last minute offers. Would it beto their advantage or not to offer something higher just to have the courts rule?



Note: Above 52 (1) states reasonably incurred here it states reasonable cost.

This means the court will not consider offers made less than 10 days prior to

court date, but will consider the last offer prior to 10 days before court. What

advantage or disadvantage is this to me?

Would they try and settle even in the court room?

The submission will go to D.O.T.

They have a choice to make a new offer or go to court or push it towards the court

and who knows make a deal just prior to court.

When and if it gets to court will the court be dealing with points of law only? Will

this be a case of lawyers fighting out the interpretation of the Act . Will they argue

Documents

Expropriation Act extracts 15 Dec 99 (Questions)