Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Fleming

Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Fleming

Majority: Where a court, by agreement of parties, discharges a jury and assumes the jury's fact‑finding functions, it acts as a quasi‑arbitrator and its decision is not reviewable on appeal in the ordinary course; accordingly the appeal was quashed. (Majority also indicated that, had merits been open, they would...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
(1893) 22 SCR 33
Parties
Appellant / Defendant: Canadian Pacific Railway Company; Respondent / Plaintiff: James Fleming
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 February 1893
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Civil Tort Judgment (personal Injury/negligence) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Judgment of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick Following a Trial Where the Jury Was Discharged by Consent and the Matter Was Referred to the Court
Outcome
Appeal quashed with costs.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Jurisdiction to Appeal, Reference of Jury Matter to Court by Consent, Level Crossing Safety, Statutory Compliance
Source Language
english
Tort Civil Procedure Railway Law Administrative/statutory Interpretation Negligence Jurisdiction to Appeal Reference of Jury Matter to Court by Consent Level Crossing Safety +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Canadian Pacific Railway Company

Appellant / Defendant

James Fleming

Respondent / Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Civil Tort Judgment (personal Injury/negligence) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Judgment of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick Following a Trial Where the Jury Was Discharged by Consent and the Matter Was Referred to the Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a decision by a court acting beyond its ordinary jurisdiction pursuant to parties' consent (discharging a jury and deciding facts) is appealable
  2. 2 Whether the railway company was negligent given compliance with statutory signals and other precautions at a level crossing
  3. 3 Whether statutory schemes prescribing signals/protections at level crossings limit jury/ court liability findings

Ratio Decidendi

Majority: Where a court, by agreement of parties, discharges a jury and assumes the jury's fact‑finding functions, it acts as a quasi‑arbitrator and its decision is not reviewable on appeal in the ordinary course; accordingly the appeal was quashed. (Majority also indicated that, had merits been open, they would have dismissed the appeal.)

Court Disposition

Appeal quashed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal quashed with costs.