Munro v. National Capital Commission
Supreme Court of Canada
[1966] S.C.R. 663
Harold Munro v. National Capital Commission
On Appeal from the Exchequer Court of Canada
Argued: May 2-4, 1966 --- Decided: June 28, 1966[1]
Constitutional law—Expropriation of land for Green Belt in National Capital area—Whether Parliament has legislative authority to do so—National Capital Act, 1958 (Can.), c. 37, s. 13 (1)—B.N.A. Act, 1867-1960, ss. 91, 92.
The National Capital Commission, with the approval of the Governor in Council, and acting under s. 13 (1) of the National Capital Act, 1958 (Can.), c. 37, expropriated a farm in the township of Gloucester in the province of Ontario owned by the appellant. It was conceded that the appellant's lands were taken for the purpose of establishing the Green Belt proposed in the Master Plan (Greber) for the development of the National Capital Region. On an application before the Exchequer Court for a special case, it was directed that the following question be tried before the trial of the other questions raised in the action:
"Whether, on the special case stated by the parties, the expropriation of the lands of the defendant by the National Capital Commission therein referred to is a nullity because the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada under the British North America Act, 1867 to 1960, does not extend to authorizing the expropriation."
The trial judge answered the question in the negative. The defendant appealed to this Court. Leave to intervene in this appeal was granted to the Attorney General for Ontario and the Attorney General for Quebec, but the former subsequently withdrew his intervention.
Held: The appeal should be dismissed.
The subject matter of the National Capital Act is the establishment of a region consisting of the seat of the Government of Canada and the defined surrounding area which are formed into a unit to be known as the National Capital Region which is to be developed, conserved and improved "in order that the nature and character of the seat of the Government of Canada may be in accordance with its national significance." That subject matter is not referred to in either s. 91 or s. 92 of the British North America Act. Consequently, the sole power rests with Parliament under the preliminary words of s. 91, relative to "laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada." It was therefore within the powers of Parliament to authorize the Commission, for the attainment of its objects and purposes as defined in the Act, to make the expropriation of the lands of the appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of Gibson J. of the Exchequer Court of Canada.[2] Appeal dismissed.
B.J. MacKinnon, Q.C. and Roydon Hughes, Q.C. for the appellant.
D.S. Maxwell, Q.C. and G.W. Ainslie for the respondent.
Gerald LeDain, Q.C. for the intervenant Attorney General for Quebec.