The appellant municipality constructively expropriated respondents' watershed property by refusing all development, having deprived the owners of all reasonable uses.
The issue on appeal was whether watershed zoning regulations enacted in 1994 formed part of the expropriation scheme and should be ignored when assessing statutory compensation under s. 27(1)(a) of Newfoundland and Labrador's Expropriation Act.
The Supreme Court restored the application judge's order, holding that the watershed zoning was an independent enactment and not made with a view to expropriation, and therefore must be taken into account in fixing the property's market value.
The Court clarified that the Pointe Gourde principle requires inquiry into whether an enactment was made with a view to expropriation, not merely whether it was causally connected to the taking.
Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
