Booth v. Lowery

Booth v. Lowery

Majority held appellant liable: his employees acted with reckless disregard and failed to take practicable precautions, causing "unnecessary damage" to a cofferdam; absent clear Dominion legislation overriding provincial statute, rights under the Ontario Rivers and Streams Act protect such structures and restrict log-driving practices; thus the Appellate Division's judgment against the appellant was affirmed.

Citation
(1917) 54 SCR 421
Parties
Appellant/defendant: John R. Booth; Respondent/plaintiff: Edwin D. Lowery; Respondent/plaintiff: Goring
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 February 1917
Procedural Posture
Torts (civil Appeal) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Appellate Division affirmed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Driving Logs, Rivers and Streams Act (ont.), Dominion Vs Provincial Jurisdiction, Contract With Crown, Navigable Waters
Source Language
English
Torts Property Navigation Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Negligence Driving Logs Rivers and Streams Act (ont.) +3 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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John R. Booth

Appellant/defendant

Edwin D. Lowery

Respondent/plaintiff

Goring

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Torts (civil Appeal) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellant liable for damage to cofferdam caused by log driving
  2. 2 Whether s.4 of the Ontario Rivers and Streams Act applied to protect the cofferdam as a structure
  3. 3 Whether Dominion parliamentary authorization for river improvements overrode provincial statutory rights of lumbermen

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held appellant liable: his employees acted with reckless disregard and failed to take practicable precautions, causing "unnecessary damage" to a cofferdam; absent clear Dominion legislation overriding provincial statute, rights under the Ontario Rivers and Streams Act protect such structures and restrict log-driving practices; thus the Appellate Division's judgment against the appellant was affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Appellate Division affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs