Legal incoherence and the extra‐constitutional law of regulatory takings The Canadian experience

Legal incoherence and the extra‐constitutional law of regulatory takings The Canadian experience Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine Canadian law governing “regulatory takings” – the state's interference in a landowner's use and enjoyment of his property as a consequence of regulation. It considers whether the way that the law has developed in this area poses a risk of “legal incoherence” – a contradiction in the law itself, either between two discrete areas of law (“external incoherence”) or within a single discrete area of law (“internal incoherence”). Design/methodology/approach – This paper draws upon and expands a conception of coherence articulated by past commentators and applies it to reported judgments comprising the Canadian law in this area. Findings – The extra‐constitutional nature of restrictions on the state's power to take, and a lack of doctrinal rigour are shown to have allowed the risk of incoherence to materialize in Canada by creating a distorted body of law. The modest constraints which Canadian law imposes upon regulatory takings fail to cohere to rights conferred upon landowners under various treaties and declarations to which Canada has subscribed. The law is therefore incoherent in an external sense. Recent jurisprudence also reveals an internal incoherence as the law purports to recognize a distinction between an expropriation and a regulatory taking, whilst simultaneously requiring that a regulatory taking demonstrate a quality unique to an expropriation. Practical implications – This paper clarifies the distinctions between an expropriation and a regulatory taking, explains the Canadian law governing both, and illustrates the tenuous state in Canada of public authority liability for restricting private use and enjoyment of land. Originality/value – The implications for domestic law of international obligations respecting regulatory takings are highlighted. This paper's reference point of coherence offers a novel standpoint for assessing the quality of judge‐made regulatory takings law. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png International Journal of Law in the Built Environment Emerald Publishing

Legal incoherence and the extra‐constitutional law of regulatory takings The Canadian experience

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/legal-incoherence-and-the-extra-constitutional-law-of-regulatory-dIZnNUW6HM
Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
Copyright © 2009 Emerald Group Publishing Limited. All rights reserved.
ISSN
1756-1450
DOI
10.1108/17561450911001243
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine Canadian law governing “regulatory takings” – the state's interference in a landowner's use and enjoyment of his property as a consequence of regulation. It considers whether the way that the law has developed in this area poses a risk of “legal incoherence” – a contradiction in the law itself, either between two discrete areas of law (“external incoherence”) or within a single discrete area of law (“internal incoherence”). Design/methodology/approach – This paper draws upon and expands a conception of coherence articulated by past commentators and applies it to reported judgments comprising the Canadian law in this area. Findings – The extra‐constitutional nature of restrictions on the state's power to take, and a lack of doctrinal rigour are shown to have allowed the risk of incoherence to materialize in Canada by creating a distorted body of law. The modest constraints which Canadian law imposes upon regulatory takings fail to cohere to rights conferred upon landowners under various treaties and declarations to which Canada has subscribed. The law is therefore incoherent in an external sense. Recent jurisprudence also reveals an internal incoherence as the law purports to recognize a distinction between an expropriation and a regulatory taking, whilst simultaneously requiring that a regulatory taking demonstrate a quality unique to an expropriation. Practical implications – This paper clarifies the distinctions between an expropriation and a regulatory taking, explains the Canadian law governing both, and illustrates the tenuous state in Canada of public authority liability for restricting private use and enjoyment of land. Originality/value – The implications for domestic law of international obligations respecting regulatory takings are highlighted. This paper's reference point of coherence offers a novel standpoint for assessing the quality of judge‐made regulatory takings law.

Journal

International Journal of Law in the Built EnvironmentEmerald Publishing

Published: Oct 2, 2009

Keywords: Canada; Regulation; Legislation; Land

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create folders to
organize your research

Export folders, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off