78 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS 



claim to be made for compensation because of an owner being prevented 

 from deriving advantage from that abuse. There are cases in which land 

 is used for building development to such an extent that it becomes — not use 

 of land — but abuse of land — or abuse of the right use of land. I think 

 those who advocate the single tax say there are two uses of land, one is 

 " non-use " and the other is " use." We have, however, three forms of use — ■ 

 one is use, the other is non-use and the third is abuse. What we call 

 " improving " land or " developing " land may actually result in an injury 

 to the public. We have to recognize the rights of the man who claims com- 

 pensation for restrictions on his use of property; but he should not, for 

 instance, be permitted to demand air space from other property abutting 

 thereon as a right. He ought not to be allowed to claim compensation on the 

 ground that he is prevented from using the public space on the street or 

 open space on an adjoining site to provide him with light. Surely he may 

 properly be required to use his own property for the purpose of providing 

 his own air space and light. I speak of what appears to me to be equitable 

 although it may be without regard to what is legal. 



Our Parliament recognizes constitutional guarantees of the equal pro- 

 tection of the laws. I don't think there is very much distinction between 

 your treatment of private interests in property and our own, except that 

 probably we are able to secure by general law what you have to secure by 

 police power and you have probably to educate your courts with regard to 

 the interpretation of the matters that come within the scope of the police 

 power. You do not appear to have the same power to revise and remodel 

 your law to suit changing conditions. 



In Great Britain and Canada a person cannot obtain compensation for 

 being prevented from doing anything to contravene a town planning scheme 

 after a given date. There is no appeal in that matter above the department 

 of the government. The following subsection which appears in our town 

 planning acts shows how much jurisdiction is vested in the department, and 

 therefore the reason why the matter does not come before the courts. 



'' Property shall not be deemed to be injuriously affected by reason of 

 the making of any provisions inserted in a scheme, which, with a view to 

 securing the amenity of the area affected by the scheme, or any part thereof, 

 or proper hygienic conditions in connection with the buildings to be erected 

 thereon, prescribe the space about buildings, or the percentage of any lot 

 which may be covered with buildings, or limit the number of buildings to be 

 erected, or prescribe the height, character or use of buildings, and which the 

 department, 1 having regard to the nature and situation of the land affected 

 by the provisions, considers reasonable for the purpose of amenity and 

 proper hygienic conditions." The right of our town planning authorities to 

 name restrictions has never been contested in the Courts, but town planning 

 is still in its infancy. 



Where I think we seem to have an advantage in our town planning acts 

 in Canada is that the provinces have full power to deal with municipal 

 matters and questions affecting land. They pass an act and there is no 

 appeal from that act to any federal court. There is, however, an appeal 

 to the provincial Parliament to decide differences between the municipality 

 and the owner. For instance, in a town planning act a ministerial depart- 

 ment of the province — say the department of municipal affairs — becomes 

 the controlling authority in regard to planning in that province. The 

 municipalities have to apply to that department for the right to prepare their 



1 Provincial Department of Municipal Affairs or Local Government Board. 



