Serge Cardinal

The appellants claimed acquired rights under s. 101 of the Act to preserve agricultural land to build a house on a lot without authorization from the Commission.

The lot contained the stone foundations and wood flooring of a residence demolished in 1976, which were not covered by vegetation when the Act became applicable in 1980.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the appellants did not have acquired rights, as s. 101 requires actual use of the land for a purpose other than agriculture at the time the Act became applicable.

The abandoned foundations did not constitute an effective use of the lot, and the absence of vegetation alone did not preserve an acquired right.

The appellant purchased land to develop a residential subdivision and completed some infrastructure work before the Act to preserve agricultural land came into effect.

A portion of the land was subsequently zoned agricultural.

The appellant sought a declaration that he had acquired rights to proceed with the development on the agricultural portion, arguing that his subdivision plan approval constituted a permit authorizing use and that his development work constituted use for a purpose other than agriculture.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant did not have acquired rights under s. 101 of the Act.

The Court found that the land in the agricultural zone was not actually being used for non-agricultural purposes when the Act came into force, and that a subdivision plan approval does not constitute a permit authorizing use.