Saskatchewan landowners challenging RM by-law that would expropriate gravel pit property

Two sisters own a quarter section of land in Saskatchewan adjacent to a gravel pit owned by their Rural Municipality ("RM").  The RM's current gravel pit is nearly exhausted, and the RM has been interested in obtaining the sisters' property - the property is ideally located next to the existing pit, and demand for gravel in Saskatchewan is currently very high.  In November, 2015, the RM offered to purchase the land, which has been in the sisters' family for generations, for $1.5 million.  The sisters rejected the offer.

The sisters then entered into a gravel extraction lease agreement in February, 2016 with a private company.  Later that month, the RM upped its offer by $17,000, and served a notice of expropriation along with its purchase offer.  The sisters again rejected the RM's offer.  The RM moved ahead and passed a by-law authorizing the expropriation of the property in May, 2016.

The matter has ended up in the Court of Queen's Bench.  The RM applied to have the compensation determined on the expropriation.  The sisters applied to the Court for determination as to whether the RM was lawfully expropriating the land for a purpose authorized by the Municipal Expropriation Act.  The Court has deferred the RM's application and allowed the sisters' application to proceed as an application to quash the by-law.

The sisters do not challenge the RM's authority to expropriate land where necessary to ensure that the RM has an adequate source of gravel to fulfill its duty to build and maintain roads within the municipality.  They argue that the RM's true purpose in passing the expropriation by-law was not to ensure an adequate source of gravel; instead, according to the sisters, the RM wants their property to acquire a source of gravel that the RM can sell at a profit in the context of the current high demand for gravel in Saskatchewan.

This will be an interesting case to watch.

Read the decision at: Rural Municipality of Edenwold No. 158 v Murray.