Saint John homeowner must be out of expropriated home by June 1

Andrew Bates, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, Telegraph-Journal

Time is running out for a homeowner who was ordered to leave after his south end house was expropriated by the province for a new school in Saint John.

On Wednesday in Saint John Court of Kings Bench, Justice William Grant approved a request from the province for a warrant to have Thomas Craft removed from his former home on St. James Street as of June 1. The home was one of 11 properties that the province acquired for a new school on the south central peninsula, set to open September 2026.

The province expropriated the property, valued at $420,000 in August, and in October, Craft was given a cheque for $186,700, with deductions for money owed to the Canada Revenue Agency, Brunswick News reported in January. The letter ordered Craft to be out by Nov. 16, a deadline that was extended to Dec. 1.

In January, Grant allowed an adjournment to allow Craft and his power of attorney, Mitchell Albert, to review the province’s legal application, with the judge saying he felt three weeks was “not a lot of time” to find a new house in the current market.

On Wednesday, Albert asked for three more months, and the province’s attorney, Jason Caissie, asked for a week for Craft to be removed.

“I think I’ve given you accommodations, I’ve given you the adjournment, I’ve given you another six months, I can’t extend it beyond that,” Grant said.

Outside the courthouse, Albert said he and Craft have now applied for arbitration to ask for the government to move the house rather than demolish it.

“They’re not interested in the house, they’re interested in the property,” he said, saying that they obtained a quote that the house, which Craft built in 2010 for more than $500,000, would cost $1.5 million to build now.

He also said the government is obligated to “put him in the same situation that he was in before they came into his life, and 180 grand isn’t cutting that.”

Craft was also a landlord to five tenants, one of whom Albert said still lives there and has not been given notice to move by the government.

Grant told him in court that would be Craft’s responsibility.

Caissie said expropriation is an “extreme but necessary” power allowing the government to build public works. He said that the 30-day time period to challenge the expropriation had long expired.

Caissie said it’s clear there’s “no intent to give up the property” after four months, leading to the need for the warrant.

“Every day that Mr. Craft remains on the property is another day the province is delayed in breaking ground” on the new school, Caissie said.

Caissie walked through the steps the government took to proceed with the expropriation, saying they didn’t miss anything, but even if there had been a small error, there is now no window to contest the validity of the expropriation.

Albert called that a “cloak for fraud,” and said there is a housing and homelessness crisis, and that the money provided wasn’t enough to re-house Craft.

Grant said there was no evidence of fraud, but he did take notice of issues of homelessness, saying it’s a “societal issue, not a legal issue” that he has the power to solve.

On Wednesday, Albert asked for an injunction while they proceed with a freedom of information request to acquire a report cited as the justification to seize the property, which was not successful. Albert told the judge the goal is not to stop the expropriation.

“We’re trying to save Tommy’s house, which they don’t need,” he said.

Albert said the government didn’t have plans finalized for the development, including whether the property was needed for a community hub, parking lot or the school itself.

He also said the government hadn’t done public consultation to determine the public interest, and hadn’t followed due process, while Craft did everything he could be expected to.

Caissie told the court that the legislation allows the government to act in what it believes is in the public interest, and that the legislation makes no requirement for public consultation. He said there was discussion at one point about moving the house, but they went ahead with the expropriation and Craft was compensated.

Grant rejected the request for an injunction, saying the Crown can only be the subject of the injunction if there’s evidence of “deliberate flouting of the law,” which he said did not exist.

Also Wednesday, a family friend, Adie Pearson, argued she should be given intervener status to make statements of fact and law, which was also denied.

Reached on Wednesday, Department of Transportation and Infrastructure spokesperson Kelly Cormier said the province had no comment on the judge’s decision.

Craft declined an interview as he left the courthouse to go to his residence, leaving Albert to take the interview.

– With files from Emma McPhee & Barbara Simpson

The Local Journalism Initiative (LJI) is a federally funded program to add coverage in under-covered areas or on under-covered issues. This content is created and submitted by participating publishers and is not edited. Access can also be gained by registering and logging in at: https://lji-ijl.ca.

Learn more about our News Monitoring here.