A B.C. homeowner who turned down a city buyout after a 200-year flood ravaged his neighbourhood has failed to obtain compensation after the value of his property plummeted.

On May 10, 2018, a major flood caused significant damage across Grand Forks, B.C. The low-lying North Ruckle neighbourhood was one of the hardest hit areas of the city, with water overwhelming about 60 homes.

The damage was so great that the city later moved to buy out the neighbourhood’s residents. The idea, wrote B.C. Supreme Court Justice Catherine Murray in a recent decision, was to remove all the dwellings and infrastructure—including streets, water, sewer and power—from the area, rezone it as non-residential, and restore it to a natural flood plain.

The program was B.C.’s first attempt at compensating homeowners after disaster in a way that allowed governments to reclaim land as a natural buffer against flooding.

Only a few years later, the City of Merritt was ravaged by floods that sparked the evacuation of all 7,000 residents. After the November 2021 floods, city staff spent years coming up with a plan to relocate and rebuild two breached dikes along the Coldwater River. Feeling abandoned, city officials turned to the media to vent their frustration.

It wasn’t until March 2025 that the province finally announced it was granting the city $60 million to rebuild its dike system and purchase private property that stood in the way.

In Grand Forks’ case, the city’s effort to obtain provincial grants started with “drive by” appraisals of the flooded properties, with many quickly showing signs of “serious decline,” wrote Murray in her ruling.

“Most of the houses were vacant. Many were boarded up. Crime increased in the area. Houses were looted,” wrote the judge.

Martin O’Brien was among the few who remained. The North Ruckle resident’s property escaped the flood “virtually unscathed” due to his home’s foundation and weatherproofing, according to the decision.

The initial Oct. 31, 2017 appraisal valued O’Brien’s property at $98,000. By late 2018, it had declined to $83,000.

Backed by the province, Grand Forks eventually launched a voluntary land acquisition program that included a premium to avoid the costs of expropriation, including litigation.

The program contacted O’Brien five times over the 18 months leading up to May 2021, but he declined to accept an $84,000 offer every time, according to the latest ruling.

Murray noted in her decision that O’Brien chose not to participate, testifying he would rather be expropriated than bought out. While not clear, Murray suspected the man’s decision was due to a “combination of distrust” and “hope that he would be able to stay in his home.”

“He posted a ‘No Trespassing’ sign on his fence to deter intruders,” wrote the judge.

When the city registered an expropriation notice for O’Brien’s property on Aug. 8, 2021, the market value had dropped to $62,500. He was paid out three months later.

A second appraisal raised the property’s value to $64,000. On April 17, 2026, O’Brien received the $1,500 difference, plus interest.

Meanwhile, it appears O’Brien was not satisfied with how the expropriation played out. He filed a lawsuit against the Corporation of the City of Grand Forks challenging the amount of compensation he received.

The former North Ruckle resident sought another $116,000 due to “loss of utility of the property,” plus more than $29,000 to cover moving expenses, legal costs, and rent after he has forced to move.

Murray assessed O’Brien’s more than $145,000 claim through B.C.’s Expropriation Act.

Under the law, government must follow a formula that provides compensation based on the market value of the land at the time of expropriation.

It also provides for “disturbance damages,” a five per cent payment above the home’s market value—if it is a primary residence—plus the reasonable costs of relocating to a similar property.

In court, O’Brien claimed his property was worth $180,000, but the judge found there was “no foundation” to establish that amount.

Crucially, Murray found that the law does not guarantee a “home for a home”—only the fair market value.

When it came to rental costs, B.C.’s expropriation law only allows for coverage of rental costs over a six month period. Murray ruled O’Brien was entitled to $342 per month for rent—or $2,052 over six months—plus $392 in moving expenses.

Found to be “substantially unsuccessful,” O’Brien was denied his legal costs, and overall, was granted about 1.6 per cent of his original claim.