The plaintiff staked unpatented mining claims on Crown land where the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) planned to build a realigned highway.
The plaintiff subsequently applied for aggregate permits, which were delayed and limited due to the highway construction.
The plaintiff brought an action claiming the MTO expropriated the property and sought compensation for the lost aggregate value.
The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding that an unpatented mining claim is not 'land' under the Expropriations Act.
The court further held that even if it were land, the claims had no value because the plaintiff could not have obtained an aggregate permit for the entire property, and the property was not wrongfully downzoned.
