Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > British Columbia  > Picton family suing the government      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Mountain Lion 1
Joined: 10/25/2006
Msg: 26
view profile
History
Picton family suing the government Page 2 of 2    (1, 2)
^^^ everything in me agrees with you
BUT
ain't there always a big BUT ...LOL
we too have accept whatever the law, hoiwever unfortunate that may be for the "nice guy". oh well they do finish last, don't they?
 Ticketoride
Joined: 6/3/2004
Msg: 27
Picton family suing the government
Posted: 2/9/2009 12:07:34 PM
legal title of ownership depends on the wording

Makes no Difference what the Title is in respect to Gov't Claims on the Property, unless the Inheritance Paperwork is not in Order or vague, subject to being legally contested.

The Status at the Time the Claim arises applies, meaning whatever the Property Title is at the Time is in Effect. Since all are well and alive, the most the Gov't can grab is one-third of its Value. The Family also has the Option to buy out the Gov't claimed Portion.
 silky tesoro
Joined: 6/15/2007
Msg: 28
Picton family suing the government
Posted: 2/10/2009 11:37:57 AM
Well, i'm happy to see we have a couple of "Lawyers" in the forums to help us understand the legalities.
 Trulio
Joined: 12/26/2005
Msg: 29
view profile
History
Picton family suing the government
Posted: 2/10/2009 7:21:58 PM
Sorry for the delay, viper,

In common law, related to 'tenants in common', if one tenant 'ruins' or 'diminishes' the value of the property, then that is a form of damage or ruin of the other tenants 'value in the property'. When one tenant improves the value of the property, and the other tenants want to sell, then the tenant which improves the property, should be compensated.

However, due to an extreme form of negligence, multiple murder, the Picton property value was substantially ruined by one of the tenants, unbeknown to the other tenants at time of the horrendous acts, for two reasons: (1) psychological, and (2) diminution of the value of the land due to forensic exploration. The land has been reduced to a minimal value in terms of converting it into agricultural land, and in terms of any 'resale' land for any other purposes; if the surviving Picton tenants want to sell, even if they could restore it for resale and normal use, it would not sell for much. It will likely be a tax sale...and revert to the Crown, in my opinion.

The other Picton tenants are the victims of the crimes of one other Picton tenant. That will not ever change.

In this case, the residual value of the land, even if it was 'restored' (what ever that means) would be minimal....The incarcerated criminal Picton, has no assets, and if he did, the victims families could pursue damages against the criminal Picton family member...but would not be compensated.

The Canadian Charter of Rights does not provide any remedy either....since the right to own property is not entrenched in the Constitution, or the CCR....

You can see an example of this regards to the alienation of property of Canadian Japanese during WW2. Only legislative votes in the Commons resulted in compensation to the Japanese Canadians. If the courts were used by Japanese Canadians, it is not so likely that they would be compensated for their dispossession. Native Indians in BC where there are existing treaties, may not have legal means, either obtain compensation for lands which were alienated.

So the land will probably be tendered in the future as a 'tax sale' since there is no residual value...even if it was restored, and cleaned up.

In normal cases, the other tenants would get a court order sale, do what is needed to sell the property (whether restore it or sell as is)...seek an some kind of adjustment for 'ruination' or 'damages', and re-apportion the sale proceeds based on the adjustment for ruination and damage.

This is simply the reverse of 'unjust enrichment'

In the Picton case, the land will likely revert to the Crown as the other tenants have no way of getting the restoration funded, even if restoration is possible due to the psychological detterent....

There are some cases similar. One was in New York wherein a buyer offered to buy a home which was the scene of a grisly murder. The buyer was not informed that the home was the scene of a grisly murder, and after buying the said property, filed a claim in court alleging fraud and misrepresenatation based on failure of the vendor to 'disclose'....the buyer won the case and it did not go to appeal.

In the Picton case, no buyer would be ignorant of the facts ....too well know. So there is no chance of misrepresentation....
 Ticketoride
Joined: 6/3/2004
Msg: 30
Picton family suing the government
Posted: 2/10/2009 8:04:30 PM
if the surviving Picton tenants want to sell, even if they could restore it for resale and normal use, it would not sell for much. It will likely be a tax sale...and revert to the Crown, in my opinion.

That's why they are suing the Crown for Damages.

The land has been reduced to a minimal value in terms of converting it into agricultural land, and in terms of any 'resale' land for any other purposes;

The Land was rezoned and is appraised at approx. 4 Million Dollars. Although the Damage took its Toll, I'd be surprised it would exceed more than a Million. Further the Suit for Damage to the Land is only 1 Item, Chattels, Plants, Fish, Infrastructure, Motor Vehicles, Stores, Equipments and Machinery, etc. which are Values above the Costs of the Property.

Its my Opinion the Crown & Robert Pickton are liable for the Damage to the Siblings and I think they'll win. What an Irony ... maybe Robert Pickton & "The People" may yet end up being legal Shoulder Buddies to defend the Claim.

The Canadian Charter of Rights does not provide any remedy either....since the right to own property is not entrenched in the Constitution, or the CCR....

That Argument has been tried & it died. You can't just burn down someone's House and then claim under the Charter it wasn't theirs to excuse your Liability. No Judge would listen to that for more than a few Minutes.

The legal Precedent would become 'unthinkable' when the Crown/Gov't can just "Card Blanche" seize anyone's Property because the Charter/BNA doesn't restrict it.

Native Indians in BC where there are existing treaties, may not have legal means, either obtain compensation for lands which were alienated.

Many already have been compensated. In others they are territorial Disputes and in many Cases cannot be, or have not been substantiated. Much is still before the Courts and not all has been settled yet.

So the land will probably be tendered in the future as a 'tax sale' since there is no residual value...even if it was restored, and cleaned up.

I beleive they'll have the Robby/Gov't by the Hook to pay for it all.

In the Picton case, the land will likely revert to the Crown as the other tenants have no way of getting the restoration funded, even if restoration is possible due to the psychological detterent....

I doubt that. I can't see the Connection between damaging the Pickton Property and anything reverting to the Crown. The Siblings hold Majority Ownership in the Property, and its their Call whats gonna happen with it. They can't sell it as it is, but I think the Crown will end up coughing up the Damages.

There are some cases similar. One was in New York wherein a buyer offered to buy a home which was the scene of a grisly murder. The buyer was not informed that the home was the scene of a grisly murder, and after buying the said property, filed a claim in court alleging fraud and misrepresenatation based on failure of the vendor to 'disclose'....the buyer won the case and it did not go to appeal.

Kinda hard to trying to conceal and misrepresent the Pickton Property ...
 Montevideo
Joined: 5/22/2006
Msg: 31
Picton family suing the government
Posted: 2/10/2009 8:52:10 PM

Native Indians in BC where there are existing treaties, may not have legal means, either obtain compensation for lands which were alienated.

The British North America Act, Canada's original constitution, was the charter to Confederation in 1867.

Section 91(24) of the BNA Act established Federal jurisdiction over "Indians, and lands reserved for the Indians". The federal government implemented their responsibility through the Indian Act.

The Royal Proclamation of 1763 established British protection over unsettled land belonging to Indian tribes and recognized Indian title to lands not already colonized.

The Proclamation is considered to be one of the strongest guarantees of First Nations' land rights. Pre-existing land ownership was acknowledged and is a very important legal concept today.


The Canadian Charter of Rights does not provide any remedy either....since the right to own property is not entrenched in the Constitution

The right to seize a property does not wave compensation.

Canada came into being in 1867 under the authority of Her Majesty, Queen Victoria, Ruler of the United Kingdom via the British North America Act.

The Provinces won the right to legislate over Property. As a consequence every property right which we as private citizens enjoy has been granted to us by the Provincial Crown.

The Provincial powers of expropriation are defined and elaborated by provincial legislation. In order to be "authorized" the right of expropriation must be granted by yet other Provincial legislation.

Expropriation Acts provide that an expropriating authority may "acquire any estate required....in the land". It is by virtue of this provision that an expropriating authority may, by the expropriation process, effectively transfer to itself complete and absolute ownership in the land. When it does so, the rights of other interest holders in the land, or interest holders by mortgages, are extinguished. Because this power of expropriation is so absolute the Provincial Legislators deemed owners and interest holders in the land should have the right to air their objections to the expropriation and thus, the Expropriation Act in many Provinces provides to those persons the right to an "Inquiry Hearing".

An Inquiry Officer appointed by the Attorney General of the Province will determine whether the intended expropriation is "fair, sound and reasonably necessary" in the achievement of the objectives of the expropriating authority.

Based on the facts, the crown doesnt have a chance in h*ll to take it away from them.

Despite all considerations, should the Province appropriate of land upon itself, it does not absolve them of any liability to pay fair market value to the Pickton family.
 Mountain Lion 1
Joined: 10/25/2006
Msg: 32
view profile
History
Picton family suing the government
Posted: 2/10/2009 11:40:51 PM

Despite all considerations, should the Province appropriate of land upon itself, it does not absolve them of any liability to pay fair market value to the Pickton family.

Thank you for the clarifications Montevideo

From a laypersons view of this matter it would appear a sensible approach for the crown to acquire ownership and pay fair market value to the Pickton family to settle the case. The land may then be restored perhaps even rezoned and offered for sale. At least that grants a possibility to recover part or all of the compensation paid.
 Trulio
Joined: 12/26/2005
Msg: 33
view profile
History
Picton family suing the government
Posted: 2/11/2009 4:32:55 PM
I agree with your last point regarding misrepresentation, Ticket. I did not know the Picton farm land was appraised at 4 million, though, and that may be significant. Does that factor in the $1 million in restoration?

In dealing with land involving non-treaty lands, the precedent was set not long ago re, as well the BC Government has a policy of compensation.

Like the other poster pointed out, fee simple land can be expropriated by the BC Government, but there the owner must be compensated for the value of the land. Unfortunately, though, as often may be the case, the compensation is set sometimes below what the land is actually worth, as is the case with the Ministry of Highways when they expropriate lands for highways.....the compensation does not factor into account rents and income from the use of the land....

There are some lands which cannot be expropriated nor confiscated and they are Reserves designated for status Indians.

For the argument to hold regarding the Picton family suing the BC Government to work, they could not recover the costs of the damage from the other tenant, Robert Picton.

For instance, Landlords are not exempt from seizure of the property if they know a grow operation is being carried out on rentals. The landlord is exempt for seizure if they can show that they were not knowledgeable of the grow operation; however some insurance policies on rentals now require landlords to inspect the rental once a month, if they do not, then the policy may exclude any and all claims.


Anyway, the other Pictons did not have any knowledge, therefore if they sue the BC Government, then the BC Government can sue Robert Picton, and recover his share after the sale, I think, but nothing of the other tenants in common chose not to sell.

It would be better to sue, then sell, no?
 Trulio
Joined: 12/26/2005
Msg: 34
view profile
History
Picton family suing the government
Posted: 2/11/2009 4:45:08 PM
Hi Montevideo,

I did not say that the right to expropriate land by the Government of BC constituted a waiver of compensation.

I stated that if they do not pay the taxes, then the land would ultimately become a tax sale, only that.

You are right during an 'inquiry' there is a three part test: 'fair, sound, and reasonably necessary'....

However I think there is still a strong 'pyschological deterrant' here regarding the use of the land; maybe the Pictons can use the land, but what was it used for before? And what was the gross income from the land prior to the convictions.

Personally I think the land should become a memorial site for ever, something like Aushwitz, or what? It may serve humanity well in providing solace and instruction...we have seen in history something similar, but not like this one. We need to stop what ever causes this....

Presently I am more concerned financially about the BC Liberals granting secure power rates to 'in stream hydro companies' at low cost, so that these companies can profit many decades....but I am not opposed to 'in-stream' ' run-of-the-river' electric projects, just I think the Province should share in the benefits financially, no?
 Ticketoride
Joined: 6/3/2004
Msg: 35
Picton family suing the government
Posted: 2/12/2009 11:07:21 AM
I did not know the Picton farm land was appraised at 4 million, though, and that may be significant. Does that factor in the $1 million in restoration?

The Land Value, minus Damage is assessed around $ 4 Million.

The Suit not only involves damage to the Land, but other Items too, and no Figures have been released.

I cannot see the Costs for Remedy of Land Damage to exceed $ 1 Million, but then that is my Opinion only. Its not like the Soil has been chemically contaminated.

Unfortunately, though, as often may be the case, the compensation is set sometimes below what the land is actually worth, as is the case with the Ministry of Highways when they expropriate lands for highways.....the compensation does not factor into account rents and income from the use of the land....

From what I gather from MV's Post, ""fair, sound and reasonably necessary" doesn't pass the Test for seizing the Land. Nevertheless, the Picktons are already suing so it doesn't matter if the Crown wants to grab it or not.

For the argument to hold regarding the Picton family suing the BC Government to work, they could not recover the costs of the damage from the other tenant, Robert Picton.

Part of the Suit may well involve for a Judge to determine whether the Crown or Robert Pickton is liable for the Damage. Nevertheless, the Siblings are entitled to Compensation 1 Way or the other.

For instance, Landlords are not exempt from seizure of the property if they know a grow operation is being carried out on rentals. The landlord is exempt for seizure if they can show that they were not knowledgeable of the grow operation; however some insurance policies on rentals now require landlords to inspect the rental once a month, if they do not, then the policy may exclude any and all claims.

This is likely different as failing to check for Corpses monthly does not amount as a Failure for the Owner to take Responsibility. Unless its been specifically legislated such as for Rental Issues, I doubt it carries any Weight. I know 2 Landlords who were forced to restore their Rental Homes after a Grow-Op was busted, but the Gov't never took their Property away from them.

There may well be Precedents in Place, but I haven't looked for them yet.
 silky tesoro
Joined: 6/15/2007
Msg: 36
Picton family suing the government
Posted: 2/12/2009 12:03:25 PM
I am back from out of town and have read some extremely interesting posts regarding the legalities of this matter. Thank you for your input and expertise, and please keep them coming. It will be interesting to see what the outcome will be from all this.
 Mountain Lion 1
Joined: 10/25/2006
Msg: 37
view profile
History
Picton family suing the government
Posted: 2/12/2009 1:50:12 PM

Part of the Suit may well involve for a Judge to determine whether the Crown or Robert Pickton is liable for the Damage…..


ticket or MV,
there are a few things I don’t quite understand here, which may effect the acceptance of the claim and/or the outcome. ( sorry, I haven’t read up on the case details)

If I understand it correctly the Piktons claim for damages hinges on the point that the crown must pay compensation for damages it caused as part of the investigation.

Obviously the type of ownership will have to be a major determining factor in any settlement. Parties holding mortgages or liens should not be affected by claims.

If the court determines the ownership status between the Pikton family members either as joined tenants or tenants in common, then a claim could only be made against that party who caused the damages.
Wouldn’t a co-owner of a property be responsible to the other owners for damages caused by his conduct including secondary damages such as the police investigation?

I realize if Robert was renting the matter may be different, thought there would also be at-arm –length considerations be taken into account if he was part owner.

Again if he was renting he should also responsible within the rental/lease agreement, which would suggest to me that the landlord has no recourse against another party for the tenants neglect, be it criminal or otherwise unless it is a (third) party engaged in a criminal activity causing said damages. This is hardly the case in a criminal investigation.

I do understand the crowns responsibility for compensation of damages caused by an investigation. However I’m at odds why the crown would be liable to pay for such compensation if the party investigated committed a crime. The criminal act preceded the investigation ad gave cause and in my logic the criminal brought the damages upon himself.
I could understand different rules may apply when the criminal act was conducted by reason of mental defect and the criminal was unable to know and reason the consequences of the actions.


As I understand the circumstances the land was used as a pig farm and in a state of neglect. The assessed value may have been affected prior to the investigation. Any possible compensation can only be to the extent of the physical damages caused, not the loss of value due to the fact is was a murder scene and subsequent damages caused by an investigation.

If this land generated income to all owners then the criminal actions of the owner generating the income causing a loss to the others cannot be made a liability to any other party. The same should be applicable in this case as would apply in case of a rental property.

If the crown holds legal title to a portion of the property due to taxes or other liens then the crown should not have any responsibility for damages caused by other events. The lien should be treated as a debit shouldn't it?
If the crown forces a sale to pay out monies owed by the property owners then the current fair market value should dictate the price regardless of preceding events. The Piktons should only have entitlement to what remains after all debits are paid.
Until a transfer of title (sale) is completed they have no claim.
 *ScorpioSweetiepie*
Joined: 8/10/2006
Msg: 38
Picton family suing the government
Posted: 2/12/2009 9:53:31 PM
this doesn't surprise me at all.. and knowing our government they will pay them


remember Clifford Olsen.. he killed a bunch of kids.. and we paid him to find the bodies.. nice

his wife made $100,000.00 off of that..

simply ridiculous!!

 silky tesoro
Joined: 6/15/2007
Msg: 39
Picton family suing the government
Posted: 2/14/2009 11:42:46 AM
^^^ yes that was horrific !! At least the RCMP didn't make that mistake again.
It looks to me like the Picton family have a case but where it will go, that remains to be seen. I don't know about you but i'm tired of paying for others mistakes through raising our taxes.
 You go first
Joined: 5/1/2008
Msg: 40
Picton family suing the government
Posted: 2/14/2009 12:46:50 PM
At the time of the original investigation, it was reported the land value was around $1million and in an agricultural/farming zone. In recent years, the City of Port Coquitlam has allowed development up to the property lines of the Picton property and the vinyl boxes have popped up like mushrooms all over the area. Much of the land is coming out of the agricultural reserve and being developed into subdivisions.

Suddenly - the 'potential' value of the Picton property is up to $4million. This is largely due to the area that it's in now being prime development land - irrespective of its gruesome history. The assessment does not take into account any emotional attachment and is just based on site/location/development potential.

Could they sell? Who would buy it. Perhaps the Government could buy the property and build low-income housing for the very people that were victimized by 'Willy' Picton. There was talk of turning it into a memorial park. A lovely green space, but still.... Our taxes.
 Trulio
Joined: 12/26/2005
Msg: 41
view profile
History
Picton family suing the government
Posted: 2/14/2009 7:49:14 PM
The best thing is that it goes through a lengthly legal wrankling, that which might last for 0-40 years, that way, the current owners will be decesased.

The case is so bizarre and offensive that it will lanquish in legal havens for up to 40 years,

ce la vie,

the problem with the Picton Family is that they cannot obtain legal representation on a contingency basis, although I do know that there are some legal aid lawyers, assigned...to matters and pleadings of a family nature, which are common, such as sponsored spouses from latin america.




chao

jauncito
 Trulio
Joined: 12/26/2005
Msg: 42
view profile
History
Picton family suing the government
Posted: 2/14/2009 8:39:21 PM
If I was judge, I would decide this way:

Let the province buyout the remaining interests for the amount argued. Plant cottonwood trees, as phreatic surface, I would donate my share,

okay

The innocent need to be protected
 Ticketoride
Joined: 6/3/2004
Msg: 43
Picton family suing the government
Posted: 2/16/2009 1:37:10 AM
If I understand it correctly the Piktons claim for damages hinges on the point that the crown must pay compensation for damages it caused as part of the investigation.

The Lawyer for the Picktons has deemed the Crown is liable for Damage caused to their Property, which they own in Part.

Obviously the type of ownership will have to be a major determining factor in any settlement. Parties holding mortgages or liens should not be affected by claims.

That follows ...

If the court determines the ownership status between the Pikton family members either as joined tenants or tenants in common, then a claim could only be made against that party who caused the damages.

I doubt these Status have any Bearing on who pays for the Damage. They were Part-Owners of one Variety or another, apparently a Family Inheritance. The Siblings own 2/3 rds. of the Property.

Wouldn’t a co-owner of a property be responsible to the other owners for damages caused by his conduct including secondary damages such as the police investigation?

The Courts will have to determine whether Robert or the Crown are responsible for the Damage, and is the Basis of the Suit against the Crown. Other mitigating Circumstances probably exists we know not of. We'll just have to see how it unfolds.

I realize if Robert was renting the matter may be different, thought there would also be at-arm length considerations be taken into account if he was part owner.

He is Part Owner, as much as either of the Siblings.

I do understand the crowns responsibility for compensation of damages caused by an investigation.

And that appears to be the Basis of the Pickton Sibling Suit.

However I’m at odds why the crown would be liable to pay for such compensation if the party investigated committed a crime.

Hypothetical Example.

You and your Brother own a House. Cops come in and bust up the Place and find your Drugs. Your Brother would sue you. It would appear a similar Scenario would apply to the Pickton Case. Until the Pickton Lawyer gives us more Details, I wouldn't bother making any further Speculations.

Its also possible the Sibling Lawyer has timed the Suit just in Time when Robert Pickton Appeal is coming up, possibly banking on a mistrial allowing for a brief Window for legal Maneuvers. We just have to wait until it all unfolds. Its even possible this might take 7 Years before we'll know for sure.

The criminal act preceded the investigation ad gave cause and in my logic the criminal brought the damages upon himself.

Again, the Sibling Lawyer believes he has a Case, but hasn't presented it for me to comment on.

As I understand the circumstances the land was used as a pig farm and in a state of neglect. The assessed value may have been affected prior to the investigation. Any possible compensation can only be to the extent of the physical damages caused, not the loss of value due to the fact is was a murder scene and subsequent damages caused by an investigation.

That's a given ...

If this land generated income to all owners then the criminal actions of the owner generating the income causing a loss to the others cannot be made a liability to any other party.

Loss of Income might be another Issue, perhaps another Party will be found liable for that.

If the crown holds legal title to a portion of the property due to taxes or other liens then the crown should not have any responsibility for damages caused by other events.

Tax Debts is another Issue with the municipal Gov't, ie. nothing to do with the Crown messing up the Land. Liens have nothing to do with Ownership. They merely prevent the Property of being disposed without being compensated for the Amount of the Lien. A Judgement would be required before the Lien Holder could sell it.

A Lien is not a collectible Debt. It forces the Property Owner to pay the Lien Holder should he decide to sell it. Nothing more.

Until a transfer of title (sale) is completed they have no claim.

No Title Transfer is possible without the Consent of the Pickton Twins.

remember Clifford Olsen.. he killed a bunch of kids.. and we paid him to find the bodies.. nice his wife made $100,000.00 off of that..

Completely disrelated Issue.

Suddenly - the 'potential' value of the Pickton property is up to $4million. This is largely due to the area that it's in now being prime development land - irrespective of its gruesome history.

It was re-zoned.

The best thing is that it goes through a lengthly legal wrankling, that which might last for 0-40 years, that way, the current owners will be decesased.

I believe that will likely be the Scenario, but I doubt it will exceed 10 Years after the Robert Pickton Appeal/Second Trial has been completed.

Let the province buyout the remaining interests for the amount argued.

I agree. Let them buy out the Pickton Twins, then be done with it.
 Mountain Lion 1
Joined: 10/25/2006
Msg: 44
view profile
History
Picton family suing the government
Posted: 2/16/2009 9:00:46 AM
^^^^ thanks ticket

still a lot of things in the claim unclear and it would appear a buyout may be the fastest way to settle the matter.
Show ALL Forums  > British Columbia  > Picton family suing the government