Ian F. Kelly

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.

The appellants, including a provincially constituted lottery authority, sought to strike a class action claim brought by respondents who alleged that video lottery terminals were inherently dangerous and deceptive, and sought a gain‑based award quantified by the authority's profits.

The majority held that none of the three pleaded causes of action — waiver of tort as an independent cause of action, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment — disclosed a reasonable cause of action.

The majority definitively rejected "waiver of tort" as an independent cause of action for disgorgement in Canadian law, holding that disgorgement is a remedy for established wrongful conduct and not a freestanding cause of action.

The majority further found that the breach of contract claim could not support disgorgement or punitive damages on the pleadings as framed, and that a valid contract between the parties constituted a juristic reason defeating the unjust enrichment claim.

In partial dissent, four justices would have allowed the breach of contract claim to proceed to certification on the common issues of breach of contract, punitive damages, and the appropriateness of disgorgement as a remedy.

The respondent was involved in a motor vehicle accident with the deceased.

Unaware that the deceased had died of unrelated causes, the respondent issued a statement of claim within the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, but outside the shorter limitation period under the Survival of Actions Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that neither the discoverability rule nor the confirmation provisions of the Limitations Act applied to extend the Survival of Actions Act limitation period.

Furthermore, the Court established the test for estoppel by convention and found that the requirements were not met, as there was no shared assumption or detrimental reliance.

The appeal was allowed and the statement of claim was struck out.

The appellant, a public officer, sought to intervene in a hearing before a provincial administrative tribunal regarding an application by a provincial telephone company.

The tribunal permitted the intervention, but the appellate court overturned this decision.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appellant's appeal, holding that a public officer requires statutory authority to intervene in an official capacity before an administrative tribunal.

The Court found that the governing statute explicitly limited the appellant's authority to intervene to federal boards, thereby denying authority to intervene before provincial boards.