DAMAGES EMINENT DOMAIN VALTE FOR SPECIAL rst FUTURE EXPAX-
siox.
The measure of damages for the expropriation for railway purposes
of a portion of land owned by a manufacturing concern, which, al-
though not in present use. is the 'natural outlet for the future expan-
sion of the business, is not the probable future profits that might be
realised from the utilization of the land taken, considered apart from
its conjunction with the remainder of the land owned by the company,
but is such proportion of the profits arising from the whole of the land,
occupied by the entire plant, including that expropriated, as the amount
of the land taken bears to all of the land occupied by the company's plant.
Re Davies and James Bay Ry. Co.. 16 Can. Ry. Cas. 78. 28 O.LJL 544.
13 D.LJL 912.
DAMAGES EMIXENT DOMAIX VALUE or LAXD TAKEN LAXD xor rx PRES-
EXT USE. FUTURE EXPAXSION.
Where land owned by a manufacturing company, but not required for
present use. is expropriated for railway purposes, damages for the taking
are to be based on the present worth or the future value of the land to
the owner at such time as he may require it for use in his business.
Re Davies and James Bay Ry/Co-, 16 Can. Ry. Cas. 78, 28 (XLJL 544,
13 DXJL 912.
DAMAGES EMINENT DOMAIX CONSEQUENTIAL IXJURIES SEVERANCT FROM
MINERAL SUPPLT ADDITIONAL COST OF TRAXSPORTATIOX.
Where the expropriation of a railway right-of-way through land owned
by a brick-making company severed its factory from a source of future
supply of brick-making material, an element of damage to be considered
328 EXPBOPBIATIOK.
in awarding damages is the additional cost of transporting material as the
result of the building of the railway; although, if the material will not be
required for many years, only the present value of the cost of transporting
at the time when required for use, should be awarded.
Re Davies and James Bay Ry. Co., 16 Can. Ry. Cas. 78, 28 O.L.R. 544,
13 D.L.R. 912.
[Varied in 19 Can. Ry. Cas. 86.]
PRINCIPLE OF COMPENSATION MARKET VALUE.
The principle upon which compensation and damages should be awarded
upon an expropriation of land is the market value, including the potential
value of tin 1 land taken, at the time of the filing of the plans, without
taking into consideration the values and elements of compensation incident
to the property at the time of the award.
St. John & Quebec Ry. Co. v. Fraser, 39 Can. Ry. Cas. 177, 24 D.L.R.
339.
EVIDENCE AS TO VALUE OF PROPERTY.
The price paid for lands contiguous to the land concerned in expropria-
tion proceedings by a railway company, although such price includes dam-
ages caused by the operation of the railway alongside the property, is
properly regarded in proof of the value of the expropriated property as
is also the price mentioned in an option to purchase the same. [Dodge v.
The King, 38 Can. S.C.R. 149, followed.]
Re Billings and Can. Northern Ontario Ry. Co., 16 Can. Ry. Cas. 375,
29 O.L.R. 608, 15 D.L.R. 918.
CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS ADAPTABILITY.
In ascertaining the quantum of damages in expropriation proceedings,
consideration must be given to the possible profitable uses the land might
be put to or is available for as well as what it has been customarily
used for, as affecting its present market value. [Ford v. Metropolitan,
etc., Ry. Co., 17 Q.B.D. 12, followed.]
Re Billings and Can. Northern Ontario Ry. Co., 16 Can. Ry. Cas. 375,
29 O.L.R. 608, 15 D.L.R. 918.
OBSTRUCTING ACCESS TO STREET.
Where a strip of land not a part of, but adjoining, a public highway
and used in conjunction therewith is expropriated by a railway company,
the landowner who has used the strip in conjunction with the highway as
a means of access to his land is deprived of a valuable right for which he
must be compensated, even though his user depends partly on the consent
of a third party, apparently willing to grant it on terms dealing with
future developments. [Holt v. Gas Light & Coke Co., L.R. 7 Q.B. 728;
O'Neil v. Harper, 13 D.L.R. 649, 28 O.L.R. 635; Re Myerscough and Lake
Erie & Northern Ry. Co.. 1] D.L.R. 458, lo Can. Ry. Cas. 168, followed.]
Re Billings and Can. Northern Ontario Ry. Co., 16 Can. Ry. Cas. 375,
29 O.L.R. 608, 15 D.L.R. 918.
[Reversed in 21 Can. Ry. Cas. 310.]
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF SECOND RAILWAY.
The owner of property over which one railway has obtained a right-
of-way is entitled to other and different damages from a second company
EXPROPRIATION. 329
expropriating land alongside the first, the property having already adjusted
itself to the first invasion.
Be Billings and Can. Northern Ontario Ry. Co., 16 Can. By. Gas. 375.
29 OJJL 608, 15 DXJL 918.
NOISE. SMOKE AXD \TBBATIOX COXDEMXATIOX FBOCEEDIXGS.
Where part of a proprietor's land is taken from him and the future
use of the part so taken may damage the remainder, such damage may
be an injurious affecting of the proprietor's other lands; so a railway
expropriating a narrow strip of land for trains to cross over is liable
for the injurious affecting of the land adjoining by reason of smoke,
noise and vibration occasioned by trains passing over such strip. [Cowper
Essex v. Local Board for Acton. 14 A.C. 153 at 161; Horton v. Colwyn
Bay, etc., [1908] 1 K.B. 327: Rex v. Mount ford. [1906] 2 K. B. 814;
Can. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Gordon. 8 Can. Ry. Cas. 53, followed.]
Re Billings and Can. Northern Ontario Ry. Co., 16 Can. Ry. Cas. 375.
29 OJ_R- 608, 15 D.L.R. 918.
SEP ABATE TITLES AXD OTFfXS TO TREAT.
Where titles are distinct, each separate owner is entitled as of right to
have a separate offer of compensation made to him by the railway company
expropriating the land for railway purposes.
Re Edmonton. Dunvegan & British Columbia Ry. Co.. 16 Can. Ry. Cas.
396, 15 D.LR, 938.
MIXEBAUS SUBJACENT AXD ADJACEXT RIGHT or SUPPOBT.
The effect of the Railway Act, 1906. with regard to the expropriation of
land by a railway company differs from that of the Railway Clauses Con-
solidation Act, 1845, in that under the former Act the company acquiring
the surface has a right of support from minerals subjacent and adjacent to
the line.
Davies v. James Bay Ry. Co., 19 Can. Ry. Cas. 86, [1914] A. C. 1043.
MIXE OWXEB RESTBICTIOX or BIGHTS MIXEBAUS FCTTBE CSE COMPEX-
SATIOX.
Under the Railway Act. 1906. the owner of minerals ia entitled to com-
pensation for loss arising from the restriction of his rights, without wait-
ing until be wishes to work the minerals: this compensation is to be ascer-
tained as at the date of the deposit of plans, and once for alL [Davies v.
James Bay Ry. Co.. 28 O.L.R. 544, 16 Can. Ry. Cas. 78, varied.]
Davies v. James Bay Ry. Co., 19 Can. Ry. Cas. 86, [1914] A. C. 1043.
VAL.CATIOX PBESEXT VALUE or LAXD TAKEX.
On the expropriation of land for railway purposes the value to be paid
ia the value to the owner as it existed at the date of the taking and not
the value to the taker: such value is the present value alone of the advan-
tages which the hind possesses whether present or future. [Cedars Rapids
v. Lacoste. 16 D.L.R. 168, [1914] A.C. 569; R. v. TrudeL, 19 D.I^R. 270.
49 Can. S.C.R- 311. followed.]
Green v. Can. Northern Ry. Co., 19 Can. Ry. Cas. 139. 22 D.L.R. 15.
PLAX or srBomsiox SETEBAXCE.
A severance of subdivision property, by a railway expropriation, which
does not injuriously affect the land as a whole is not an element of com-
330 EXPROPRIATION.
pensation. [Holditch v. Can. North. Ont. Ry. Co., 27 D.L.R. 14, [1916]
1 A.C. 536, 20 Can. Ry. Cas. 101, followed.]
Re Can. Northern Pac. Ry. Co. and Byng-Hall, 21 Can. Ry. Cas. 324, 23
B.C. 38, 35 D.L.R. 773.
PRINCIPLES GOVERNING COMPENSATION REVIEW BY APPELLATE COURT.
1. Upon an appeal from an award of arbitrators determining the compen-
sation to be paid to the owner of land compulsorily taken for railway pur-
poses, and for land injuriously affected by the construction of a railway,
under the Railway Act, 1906, Held, that the principles upon which com-
pensation is to be awarded are: (a) The value to be paid for land is the
value to the owner as it existed at the date of the taking, not the value
to the taker, (b) The value to the owner consists in all advantages
which the land possesses, present or future, but it is the present value
alone of such advantages that falls to be determined. Cedars Rapids v.
Lacoste, [1914] A.C." 569, 576; King v. Trudel, 49 Can. S.C.R. 501, 511,
followed. 2. The land in question closely adjoined the city of Moose Jaw
and there was a likelihood of its being subdivided. Held, that in determin-
ing the value of the property evidence should be directed to 'its value, hav-
ing in view the possibility of its being subdivided, and not to the fact that
lands surrounding and in the neighbourhood of the land in question had
been subdivided and sold at certain prices. 3. It is the duty of the Court
on such an appeal to consider all the evidence that has come before the
arbitrators, and if there is evidence that would justify the arbitrators in
reaching their conclusion, that conclusion should be sustained, if possible,
but the Court is entitled and bound to come to its own conclusion upon all
the evidence, and is also entitled to disregard the reasoning of the arbi-
trators if it does not agree with it, or to adopt it if it so desires, or to
support the award on any ground sufficient in law, whether or no't that
ground is relied on by the arbitrators; provided that the Court pays due
regard to the award and findings of the arbitrators and reviews them as it
would that of a subordinate Court. [Re Ketcheson and Can. Northern
Ontario Ry. Co., 29 O.L.R. 339, at p. 347, 16 Can. Ry. Cas. 286, followed.]
Green v. Can. Northern Ry. Co., 19 Can. Ry. Cas. 171, 8 Sask. L.R. 53.
ESTIMATION OF VALUE OF LAND RECONVEYANCE OF PART TAKEN.
Though an owner cannot be compelled to take back land after it has
been found unsuitable for the purpose for which it was taken by a rail-
way company, the fact, that by accepting a reconveyance, the value of
the remaining land would be materially increased, should be taken into
consideration when awarding compensation therefor.
Re Hannah and Campbellford, Lake Ontario & Western Ry. Co., 21
Can. Ry. Cas. 326, 34 O.L.R. 615, 25 D.L.R. 234.
LANDS INJURIOUSLY AFFECTED SEVERANCE JURISDICTION NOISE SMOKE
VIBRATION.
Upon the compulsory taking of lands under the Railway Act, 1906, the
owner is not entitled to compensation for severance from other lands
owned by him unless the lands taken are so connected with, or related to,
the lands left that he is prejudiced in his ability to use or dispose of the
latter. Compensation for injury likely to arise from the access to lands
being rendered more difficult by reason of the railway being carried along
or across streets rests with the Board upon making an order that the rail-
way shall be so carried. Further, an owner is not entitled to compensa-
tion for injurious affection by noise, smoke and vibration to lands separate
and disjoined from those taken. The language of s. 155 of the Railway
EXPROPRIATION. 331
Act, 1906, is founded on that of the proviso to a. 16 of the Railway
Clauses Consolidation Act, 1*45. and the English decisions with regard
to the effect of the latter section apply to the former. [Can. Northern
Ry. Co. T. Holditch. 50 Can. S.CJL 265/19 Can. Ry. Cas. 112. affirmed.]
Holditch T. Can. Xorthem Ontario Ry. Co., 20 Can. Ry. Cas. 101, [1916]
1 A.C. 536. 27 D.LJL 14.
[Followed in Re Can. Northern Pacific Ry. Co. and Byng-HalL 21 Can.
Ry. Cas. 321. 35 DJ~R. 773: North Bay Landowners v. Can. Northern On-
tario Ry. Co^ 23 Can. Ry. Cas. 35.
COMPENSATION ACCESS DEVISEES COTEXAXTS.
Tenants in common, devisees of a strip of land, intended by the testator
to be dedicated and used as a public road, and who have refused to follow
out the testator's wishes, and have held the land for the purpose of ob-
taining damages for expropriation thereof, have no such interest as will
entitle them to damages under s. 155 of the Railway Act. 1906, although
the land has been used as a means of better ingress and egress to and
from land owned by one of the parties. [English Railways Clauses Con-
solidation Act, s. Iti. Railway Act. 1906. & 155: Ricket T. Metropolitan
Ry. Co., LJS. 2 H.U 175-176: Hammersmith Ry. Co. v. Brand. L.R. 4
H.L. 171; Cowper Essex v. Acton. 14 App. Cas. at 153: Stubbing T. Metro-
politan Board of Works. LJL 6 Q.B. 37. referred to; Can. Northern Ry. Co.
* Billings. 15 D.L.R. 918. 29 O.LJR. 608. 16 Can. Ry. Cas. 375, reversed.]
Can. Northern Ry. Co. v. Billings. 21 Can. Ry. Cas. 310, 32 D.L.R. 35.
SPECIAL TALCE ADAPTABILITY FOB BUSINESS.
In expropriating lands their special suitability for the carrying on of
the owner's business and the savings and additional profits which the
owner will derive from so carrying it on, are proper elements in assessing
the compensation; but the owner is not entitled to have the capitalized
value of these savings and profits added to the market value of the lands:
what a prudent man in the owner's position would pay for them is the
proper measure of value.
Lake Erie t Northern Ry. Co. T. Schooley. 21 Can. Ry. Cas. 334, 34
O.L.R. 328, 25 D.LJL 537. 30 D.L.R. 289, 53'Can. S.C.R. 416.
ACCESS TO MIVEB ACCRUING ADVANTAGES.
The advantage accruing to a large residential property capable of use-
ful subdivision from its frontage along a river is to be considered! in fix-
ing the compensation for injurious affection of the remaining land's on a
-trip of the property being taken for a railway right-of-way which cut
off access to the river. [R. v. Buffalo t Lake Huron Ry. Co.. 23 U.C.R.
208: North Shore Ry. Co. v. Pion. 14 App. Cas. 612. referred to.]
Re Muir and Lake Erie t Northern Ry. Co-, 19 Can. Ry. Cas. 107, 20
DX.R. 687.
MINERALS Ql-AUT OF BOCK.
The words "or other minerals" usd in s. 133 of the Ontario Railway
Act (RJS.O. 1914. c. 185 1 do not include the ordinary rock of the dis-
trict: where a quarry of such rock has a special value, such value should
be included by arbitrators in fixing the amount of compensation for land
expropriated. [Imperial Acts, also Great Western Ry. Co. T. Carpalla. etc..
Clay COL, [1910] A.C. 83; North British Ry. Co. T. Budhill Coal Co.,
332 EXPROPRIATION.
[1910] A.C. 116, Caledonian Ry. Co. v. Glenboig, [1911] A.C. 290; Syming-
ton v. Caledonian Ry. Co., [1912] A.C. 87, considered.]
Re McAllister and Toronto Suburban Ry. Co., 22 Can. Ry. Cas. 272,
40 O.L.R. 252, 39 D.L.R. 207.
PERMISSION TO ENTEB LAND ORAL AGREEMENT STATUTES OF FRAUDS
COMPANY AUTHORITY OF PRESIDENT.
A railway company, without expropriating, ran its line through the
yards of a tanning company and did work improving the yards and other
work beyond the ordinary scope of a railway project. Four years later
the tanning company applied to a judge for the appointment of arbitra-
tors under the Railway Act to determine the compensation for the right-
of-way which the railway company, opposing the application, claimed to
be .entitled to without payment under an oral agreement with the pres-
ident of the tanning company since deceased. The judge ordered the trial
of an issue, with the railway company as plaintiff, to determine the rights
of the parties, and on appeal from the judgment of the Appellate Divi-
sion, affirming the judgment at the trial in favor of the plaintiffs, the
Court found that the evidence established that such an agreement was
entered into and was binding on the tanning company, that said company
was owned and conti'olled by a commercial firm of which the president
was the head, and the partnership articles and evidence at the trial showed
that he had authority to bind the company; and that the Statute of
Frauds could not be relied on to defeat the action, as it was not brought
to charge the defendants on a contract for the sale of land or of an in-
terest in land. If applicable it was taken out of the statute by part per-
formance. Idington and Duff, J.T., dissenting.
Acton Tanning Co. v. Toronto Suburban Ry. Co., 22 Can. Ry. Cas. 279,
56 Can. S.C.R. 196, 40 D.L.R. 421.
STATUTORY RIGHTS ABANDONMENT OF PROPERTY.
The rights of the County of York to damages for expropriation by the
City of Toronto of the Toronto & York Radial Ry. Co. and all its real and
personal property within the city are statutory under the Act of 1897,
and are not affected by the fact that by a by-law the county lias aban-
doned certain roads over which the line is operated to minor municipal-
ities of the county.
Re Toronto and Toronto & York Radial Ry. Co. et al., 23 Can. Ry. Cas.
218, 42 O.L.R. 545, 43 D.L.R. 49.
SUBWAY CONSTRUCTION REMOVAL OF DIRECT APPROACH TO PROPERTY
COMPENSATION Loss OF BUSINESS.
Where a claimant's land is injuriously affected by the removal of the
direct approach to the premises, by the construction of a subway by a
railway company in a street in front of the land, such claimant is entitled
to full compensation for all damage arising therefrom although no land is
taken. The arbitrator, under s. 155 of the Railway Act, 1906, should
ascertain the entire compensation to which the claimant is entitled and
in doing so should consider evidence of loss of business and make such
allowance therefor as forming part of the compensation to be allowed as
he may think just under the circunihtances. [Review of authorities; see
also annotation on Damages upon Expropriation, 1 D.L.R. 508.]
Re Birely and Toronto, Hamilton & Buffalo Ry. Co., 28 O.R. 468, af-
firmed 25 A.R. (Ont.) 88, followed.
Albin v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co., 24 Can. Ry. Cas. 398, 47 D.L.R. 587.
EXPROPRIATION. 333
DAMAGES VALCE ESUMAIIOX or TIME.
The intention of the Railway Act. Alta_, 1907, e. 8, is to fix the last
convenient date as that in refemee to which the value of propery expro-
priated shall be determined: if there is an agreement of sale the date of
that agreement is taken or if there is a Judge's order appointing: an arbi-
trator, the date of that order is taken, but if no such order is required by
reason of the parties agreeing on the third arbitrator, the value is fixed
as of the date of the service of the notice to treat under s. 101.
Can. Northern Western Ry. Co. v. Moore. 23 DJLJL 646. 8 Aha. LJ5
379.
OMSMKS EVTDEXCE STATVTOKY IJMITATIOX AS TO STMBE* ArwacAMJjiT
TO EXFCOPUATIOX ATAKD&.
& 10 of the Evidence Act. Aha., limiting to three the number of wit-
nesses on each side to be called to give opinion evidence applies to an arbi-
tration under the Railway Act, Alta_ 1907, e. 8, to fix compensation for
land eompukorUy taken.
Can. Northern Western By. Co. v. Moore, 23 DJLB. 616, 8 Aha. LJK.
379.
MIGHT TO COMFEXSAT1OX - AilOCST CXDEK "TALCATIOS" AS DIS-
TENT FKOM -AmWTKATJOX."*
The -amount of compensation payable under the Railway Act" (1906.
may refer as well to money payable under a valuation as to money payabk
under an arbitration, both methods being recognized by the act. iPei
Hodgins, J.A.I
Re Laidlaw and Campbellford. Lake Ontario ir Western Ry. Co_ 19
D.L.R. 481.
YALCE- Ae*icnjrcAi. MTUOSES DEVELOPMENT.
Lands in the vicinity of what promises to become a railway junction
hare, a higher value than that of land for agricultural purposes, and arc
to be valued as land of the industrial or building class, in estimating the
amount of compensation for their expropriation by the Crown.
The King v. Quebec Improvement COL, IS Can. Ex. 35.
SECOND ExnonuATiox ELEMENTS OF DAMAGE BKmrrs DTE TO EXHBO-
PXIATIOX QUA^TCM or DAMAGES.
Where by a second expropriation a railway takes a strip of land for a
railway yard on each side of the right-of-way first taken, the extra incon-
venience and delay due to longer crowing and to the more extensive use
of the property as a yard, are element*, of the damages to be allowed. The
hcntnlft accruing to the remaining part of the property by the expropri-
ation and the use to be made of the land taken, will be taken into consid-
eration in fixing the quantum of damages due an owner.
The King v. Fontaine. 19 Can. Ex. lift.
LESSEE COMPEXSATIOX.
The lessee in a ease of expropriation by a railway company of land
occupied by him is entitled to a compensation.
Can. Northern Ontario Ry. Co. v. MeAnuhy. 23 Qne. K.B. 472.
TAUTE or LAXD SPECIAL TALTE.
The mw of Canada, in matter of expropriation as regards the princi-
ples upon which compensation for the land taken is to be awarded is the
same as the law of England. The indemnity to be paid for land is the
334: EXPROPRIATION.
value to the owner as it existed at the date of taking, not the value to
the taker. The value to the owner consists of all advantages which the
land possesses, present or future, but it is the present value along of such
advantages that falls to be determined. When there is a special value
over the bare value of the ground consisting in a prospective value on ac-
count of certain vindertaking, the value is not a proportional part of the
assessed value of the whole undertaking, but is merely the price enhanced
above the bare value of the ground, which possible intending undertakers
would give. That price must be tested by the imaginary market which
would have ruled had the land been exposed for sale before any undertak-
ers had secured the powers or acquired the other subjects, which made
the undertakings, as a whole, a realized possibility.
Lachine, Jacques Cartier & Maisonneuve Ry. Co. v. Mitcheson, 47 Que.
S.C. 3.
STATED CASE METHOD OF FIXING COMPENSATION FORESHORE BIGHTS
SEPARATE INTERESTS TO BE ASCERTAINED BY ARBITRATORS.
Is ascertaining the compensation to be made to a landowner where fore-
shore rights are in question for land expropriated for a railway under &
57 of the British Columbia Railway Act, any increased value which the
arbitrators may find is given to the remainder of the lands and foreshore
in which the parties are interested beyond the increased values common
to all lands in the locality, shall be set off against both the amount which
may be awarded as the value of the foreshore taken and also any sum
which may be awarded as damages for the taking and severance as dis-
tinguished from the value of the lands taken. The arbitrators, in making
their award on a property in which more than one person is interested,
shall set out the amount to which each party is entitled.
Re Pacific Great Eastern Ry. Co. and Larsen, 22 B.C.R. 4.
SET-OFF USE AND OCCUPATION.
On an application for payment out of Court of moneys paid in by a
railway company for lands taken by it, held that the applicant was entitled
to the sum unpaid of the amount awarded by the arbitrators with interest
at 5 per cent. [Green v. C.N.R., 33 D.L.R. 609, followed]; and that the
company was not entitled on such application to a set-off for the value of
the use and occupation of the land by the applicant.
Re Grand Trunk Pacific Branch Lines Co. and Law, Re Railway Act
(Alta.), [1917] 2 W.W.R. 1011.
TAKING PART OF GOLF COURSE COMPENSATION VALUE OF LAND COST OF
ACQUIRING ADDITIONAL LAND AWARD ALLOWANCE FOR RECONSTRUC-
TION OF COURSE.
A railway company having taken 8 out of 76 acres belonging to a club
and laid out as a golf course, and having by the construction of the rail-
way severed 7 acres from the rest, it was held, that the club was not
bound to put up with such a course as could be laid out on the 67 acre*
left, nor to play over the railway lands; and the cost of acquiring other
premises (15 acres), suitable and convenient, was a fair test of tho dam-
age suffered. [The Queen v. Burrow, Metropolitan Ry. Co. v. Burrow
(1884), London Times 24th January and 22nd November, 1884, Boyle
and Waghorn on Compensation, p. 1052, and Hudson on Compensation, p.
1521, and City of Edinburgh v. North British Ry. Co., Princes' Street
Gardens Arbitration (1892), Hudson, p. 1530, applied.] Where the most
advantageous use has been made of property by its owner, it is that value
that the taker must pay, and the taker cannot reduce that value by limit-
EXPROPRIATION. 335
ing the damage to what lies immediately near the part taken, if the own-
er suffers through his whole piopeitj. by its being reduced to an area too
restricted to be used 1 to the same advantage as that which the whole
afforded. The compensation should include an allowance for the acquisi-
tion of additional acreage, for sewer piping; etc, taken aad rendered ase-
BBB, for reconstructing and providing toes aad greens, and for damage
to the clubhouse from sanoke, noise, and vibratkm.
Re Brantf ord Golf Jt Country Club aad Lake Erie Jc Northern Ry. COL,