Skip to content

Brought to you by

Dentons logo

Dentons Commercial Litigation Blog

Latest trends and developments in commercial litigation.

open menu close menu

Dentons Commercial Litigation Blog

  • Home
  • About us
  • Topics
    • Topics
    • Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
    • Class Action
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Judicial Review and Public Law
    • Privacy Litigation
    • Professional Liability
    • Securities Litigation
    • Technology and New Media

The Supreme Court of Canada clarifies that constructive taking does not require actual acquisition of property by the state

By Mélanie Power and Kathryn Gullason
November 4, 2022
  • Regulatory
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn

A “taking” is a forcible acquisition by the state of privately-owned property for public purposes. A taking can either be de jure (i.e., a formal taking, by, for example, by taking title of the land) or de facto (i.e., effective appropriation by a public authority exercising its regulatory powers). Owners whose land has been subject to a taking are entitled to compensation. The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) set out the test for a de facto taking in Canadian Pacific Railway v. Vancouver (City), 2006 SCC 5 (CPR). A de facto taking occurs where there has been: (1) acquisition of a beneficial interest in the property or flowing from it, and (2) removal of all reasonable uses of the property (CPR at para 30).

In Annapolis Group Inc. v. Halifax Regional Municipality, 2022 SCC 36 (Annapolis v Halifax), a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court clarified that a de facto taking — or, as the majority preferred to call it, a “constructive taking” — of private property by the state does not require actual acquisition of a proprietary interest. Instead, the inquiry focuses on whether the state has, in effect, obtained an “advantage” from the property.

Read more here.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn
Subscribe and stay updated
Receive our latest blog posts by email.
Stay in Touch
Mélanie Power

About Mélanie Power

Mélanie Power is a senior associate in the Litigation and Dispute Resolution group in Dentons’ Vancouver office. Her practice includes regulatory law, administrative law and public law. She advises private sector, public sector and government clients on a broad range of litigation and regulatory matters.

All posts Full bio

Kathryn Gullason

About Kathryn Gullason

Kathryn Gullason (She/Her/Hers) is a research associate in the Litigation & Dispute Resolution group at Dentons. She supports the Firm’s lawyers and clients, researching complex legal issues, preparing opinions for clients, developing submissions for court and other proceedings, tracking legal developments in the Firm’s key practice areas and drafting legal insights.

All posts Full bio

RELATED POSTS

  • Environmental Litigation
  • Mining
  • Regulatory

OSC Guidance on assessment and investigation cooperation

By Kelly Osaka and Changhai Zhu
  • Energy
  • Environmental Litigation
  • Regulatory

The Supreme Court of Canada finds the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act constitutional

After having been reviewed by three appellate courts, the Supreme Court of Canada has now had its opportunity to resolve […]

By Gord Tarnowsky, Stéphane Beaulac , and Dina Awad
  • Commercial Litigation
  • Regulatory

British Columbia Court of Appeal confirms scope of documents to be produced on judicial review of cabinet decision

By Mélanie Power and Ryan Bernard

About Dentons

Redefining possibilities. Together, everywhere. For more information visit dentons.com

Grow, Protect, Operate, Finance. Dentons, the law firm of the future is here. Copyright 2023 Dentons. Dentons is a global legal practice providing client services worldwide through its member firms and affiliates. Please see dentons.com for Legal notices.

Categories

  • Acknowledgement
  • Adding a Party
  • Administrative Law
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
  • Amending Pleadings
  • Arbitration
  • attempted resolution
  • Civil Litigation
  • Class Action
  • Commercial Litigation
  • Contribution and Indemnity
  • Covid-19
  • Demand Obligations
  • Discoverability
  • Energy
  • Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
  • Environmental Litigation
  • Estates and Trusts
  • General
  • Government Investigations
  • Intellectual Property
  • International Arbitration
  • Judicial Review and Public Law
  • Limitation Periods contained in "Other Acts"
  • Limitation Periods in Federal Court
  • Medical Malpractice
  • Mining
  • Misnomer
  • Motions to Strike
  • Privacy
  • Privacy and Cybersecurity
  • Privacy Litigation
  • Professional Liability
  • Quarterly privacy litigation digest
  • Regulatory
  • Securities Litigation
  • Special Circumstances
  • Statutory Variation of Time Limits
  • Successors
  • Technology and new media
  • Tolling/Varying Agreements
  • Transitional Provisions
  • Ultimate Limitation Periods
  • White-Collar Crime

Subscribe and stay updated

Receive our latest blog posts by email.

Stay in Touch

Dentons logo in black and white

© 2025 Dentons

  • Legal notices
  • Privacy policy
  • Terms of use
  • Cookies on this site