Vancouver, Victoria & Eastern Railway & Navigation Co. v. McDonald

Vancouver, Victoria & Eastern Railway & Navigation Co. v. McDonald

Majority held that approval and registration of plans and the subsequent construction and operation of a railway along the located area do not, by themselves, render the railway company liable to a mandatory order to expropriate portions of lands shown on the plans which have not been physically occupied by the permanent way; no enforceable duty to commence statutory acquisition arose on these facts. The appeal was allowed and the lower court's mandamus order was set aside.

Citation
(1910) 44 SCR 65
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Vancouver, Victoria & Eastern Railway & Navigation Company; Respondent/plaintiff: Philip McDonald
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 December 1910
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supreme Court of Canada on Appeal From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment ordering mandamus to acquire respondent's lands reversed and set aside; claim for mandamus dismissed; costs to appellants
Legal Topics
Location Plans, Right of Way, Expropriation, Mandamus, Compensation, Trespass, Highway Crossing, Statutory Interpretation
Source Language
English
Railway Law Property Law Administrative Law Eminent Domain Nuisance Transportation Location Plans Right of Way +6 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vancouver, Victoria & Eastern Railway & Navigation Company

Appellant/defendant

Philip McDonald

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court of Canada on Appeal From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether approval and registration of location plans and subsequent construction/operation obliges a railway company to expropriate parcels within the located area not physically occupied by the permanent way
  2. 2 Whether a lessee/owner can compel arbitration/expropriation and compensation absent physical entry or damage
  3. 3 Whether mandamus is an appropriate remedy to force a railway company to commence statutory acquisition proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held that approval and registration of plans and the subsequent construction and operation of a railway along the located area do not, by themselves, render the railway company liable to a mandatory order to expropriate portions of lands shown on the plans which have not been physically occupied by the permanent way; no enforceable duty to commence statutory acquisition arose on these facts. The appeal was allowed and the lower court's mandamus order was set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment ordering mandamus to acquire respondent's lands reversed and set aside; claim for mandamus dismissed; costs to appellants

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Judgment of the Court of Appeal and the mandatory order for expropriation set aside