The developer in the case was engaged in the rezoning, subdivision and development permit approval process in respect of lands a portion of which were potentially the subject of an expropriation by TransLink for what was at the time the proposed Golden Ears Bridge project. The developper adjusted its development plans to accommodate the road widening and agreed to register a no build covenant against title that subjected development of the road area to a further municipal approval. The developer claimed that loss as "injurious affection" flowing from the expropriation. The decision dealt with whether compensation was payable in such a situation. The Court held that the form of development for which the developer had obtained approval, and the associated no build covenant, were appropriate mechanisms to allow development to proceed in a timely fashion, in light of a coming expropriation, thereby minimizing the loss the developer would suffer. Second, the Court rejected TransLink's argument that the developer's project benefitted from the Golden Ears Bridge project, which benefit should be off-set against the developer's injurious affection claim. Finally, the Court rejected numerous arguments challenging the expert appraisal and planning evidence the developer had submitted to establish the loss it had suffered. The Court specifically accepted the evidence of the developer, the developer's planner and the municipality as to the nature of the development that would have been advanced and approved had the Golden Ears Project not happened.