They did have access to a second opinion - that of the expropriating authority they were dealing with. Why they choose to beleive one set of experts and not another is certainly a personal matter. I don't think expropriating authorities want to go before the ECB any more than property owners do and would(or should) make it clear to property owners their position in regards to value. One must take into consideration though that from a property owner's point of view the cards are stacked against them - they deal with a property agent who is either paid directly by the expropriating authority or under contract to them - their responsibility is to obtain propety at the most favourable cost to the ones who pay for their services. Certainly the best way to keep your job or get more contracts. ECB decisions can be appealed in the Provincial Courts - so even if a party disagrees with the outcome they can carry it further. If they beleive that any of the experts engaged in inproper conduct - there are steps to be taken to address this. Sometimes the number of people involved both paid experts and those who always exist who could get more if it was them(You know the ones who can get a better deal whether it be a car, house, bigger fish, whatever) can confuse the issues. There are of course some experts that are questionable - like working with a client for many months - presenting them with a bill along with the words - don't know why you hired me I don't know anything about this - somehow better said at the first meeting not the last. Did the property owners in this case get "sucked in" - don't know - but you do seem a little "anti-expert", have you had a bad experience with "experts"? Regardless of the outcome - I would think that they considered all possibilities or certainly should have. I would seriously doubt that anyone guaranteed they would win or even break even.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

The decision is now in on the costs...guess what the owners got stiffed by their experts! Perhaps a second opinion was in order prior to proceeding before the Board.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

I'm not sure I would use the term "sucked in" but you have a very good point in that owners do sometimes rely on the advise of experts. At one time expropriating authorities advised owners to seek legal advise - and even paid for such advise - to give owners a level playing field. Negotiators would also advise owners to seek outside appraisals if they disagreed with expropriating authorities appraisals. I think owners that seek such advise do so with the best of intentions and wish only to obtain fair market value.(At least I like to think this is the case) A lot of confidence is placed in these "experts" and perhaps it is not always justified. I suppose it comes down to who a person trusts - a gamble.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Do you think the owners, I beleive there were 5 of them, got sucked in by the experts, as an opportunity to make a windfall on the premise that the experts position would win? You were right in that the owners have to make the final decision on whether or not to proceed, however, this is such a specialized area, that most owners have never been in this situation before and don't have a clue on the legal aspects. They are relying totally on the experts for advice and decsion making.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Like I said, it is a high stakes game going to hearing. No matter how well intentioned or well founded the legal advice, the outcome is in the hands of a third party. The owner accepts all liability for costs by deciding to proceed to hearing. There is no safety net or recourse for unexpected outcomes. As for ambulance chasers, there are occasions, as in any area of law, but the incidence is now lower thanks in part to the introduction of the Tariff and the Board's awareness. Having said that nearly all the lawyers I have dealt with are ethical and believe in their position.