Pierre Laurin

The appellant owned an auto body shop in the respondent municipality.

The municipality adopted a resolution to expropriate the appellant's property for the purpose of creating a land reserve, after attempts to purchase it failed.

The appellant challenged the expropriation, arguing the municipality lacked the power to expropriate solely for a land reserve and that the notice lacked precision.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Cities and Towns Act permits municipalities to expropriate for land reserves, as it constitutes a valid municipal purpose.

The Court also found that stating the expropriation was 'for purposes of a land reserve' satisfied the Expropriation Act's requirement for a precise statement of purpose.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was acquitted of unlawfully practising medicine.

The respondent appealed the acquittal by way of trial de novo under section 75 of the Summary Convictions Act.

The appellant argued that this procedure violated his right against double jeopardy under section 11(h) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that an appeal by way of trial de novo by a prosecutor from an acquittal is essentially a new trial and violates section 11(h).

The appeal was allowed and the acquittal restored.