The Yukon government would have no legal obligation
to compensate the Peel’s mineral claimholders if it accepted the final
recommended land use plan, says lawyer Thomas Berger.
Implementing a land use plan with no surface access
is not “defacto expropriation” of mining claims, the prominent B.C. lawyer says
in a legal opinion prepared for the Yukon Conservation Society and CPAWS-Yukon.
Berger is representing the two groups and two Yukon
First Nations in a suit against the Yukon government’s decision to open most of
the Peel for industrial development.
Here is the executive summary of the 33-page Berger
opinion:
We have considered whether, if the Final Recommended
Plan (FRP) of the Peel Commission is implemented, the Government of Yukon (YG)
would be obligated to compensate owners of mineral claims or other property
interests within protected areas for economic loss resulting from restrictions
on the use of their land.
This issue arises because of the provision in the
FRP that surface access to existing mineral claims would not be permitted in protected
areas (though access by air would be allowed).
It is vital to keep in mind that instituting a
program of land use planning is not the same thing as expropriation. When a
specific parcel of land is expropriated, the owner is entitled to be compensated
under the Yukon Expropriation Act R.S.Y. 2002, c.81. But the implementation of
a land use plan for the Peel Watershed would not constitute expropriation of
anyone’s land or anyone’s mineral claim. Instead it is what the Supreme Court
of Canada has described as “the broad assignment of land use.” Tener v. B.C.
[1985] 1 S.C.R. 533. The Supreme Court in Tener compared land use planning to
zoning. When your property is rezoned, you are not compensated. Everyone whose
land is rezoned must live with what may well be a very serious limitation on
the use of such land.
The Supreme Court has held in Canadian Pacific
Railway v. Vancouver [2006] 1 S.C.R. 227 that, to amount to de facto
expropriation, two conditions must be met:
1. The government must acquire a
beneficial interest in the land in question. In the Yukon we are mainly
concerned with the owners of mineral claims. In the case of the implementation
of the Peel Commission’s FRP, YG acquires no beneficial interest in the mineral
claims.
2. Removal of all reasonable uses of the land. Thus
the economic value of the land to the owner of the mineral claim must be
reduced to the point where it is of no real use for exploiting minerals. It
could be argued this would be the outcome under the FRP, since there would be
no access except by air.
Let me repeat: The law in Canada, as enunciated by
the Supreme Court, is that both conditions must exist for there to be a de
facto expropriation and thus a right to compensation. In this case there would
be no acquisition by YG of a beneficial interest in any mineral claim or in any
other property. So YG would have no legal obligation to pay compensation.
No comments:
Post a Comment