Brown, R (2009) Legal incoherence and the extra-constitutional law of regulatory takings: The Canadian experience. International Journal of Law in the Built Environment, 1(3), pp. 179-193. ISSN 1756-1450
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 extraconstitutional 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 judgemade regulatory takings law.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Canada; land; legislation; regulation |
| Index terms: | methodology, regulation, coherence, legislation, public authority, liability, constitutional law, land, judgment, Canada |
| Subjects: | constitutional law, human factors and perception, dispute resolution, real estate economics, legal systems, research methods, Geography, administrative law, political science, liability law |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Geographical Context, Governance, Urban Studies, Legal Issues |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here