The King v. Sincennes-McNaughton Line, Ltd.

The King v. Sincennes-McNaughton Line, Ltd.

The evidence produced a preponderance of probability that the gates failed because they were not properly mitred by the Crown’s servants; absent proof of a competing cause and given the duty of care in operating public works, that inference established negligence under s.20(c) and justified affirming the Exchequer Court judgment.

Citation
[1928] SCR 84
Parties
Appellant (defendant): His Majesty The King; Respondent (suppliant): Sincennes-McNaughton Line, Ltd.
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 October 1927
Procedural Posture
Petition of Right (tort) — Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada / On Appeal From the Exchequer Court of Canada; Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Exchequer Court affirmed with costs.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Crown Liability, Collision, Canal Operations, Exchequer Court Act S.20(c)
Source Language
English
Tort Maritime Law Public Law Negligence Crown Liability Collision Canal Operations Exchequer Court Act S.20(c)

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

His Majesty The King

Appellant (defendant)

Sincennes-McNaughton Line, Ltd.

Respondent (suppliant)

Procedural Posture

Petition of Right (tort) — Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada / On Appeal From the Exchequer Court of Canada; Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Crown is liable for negligence under s.20(c) of the Exchequer Court Act
  2. 2 Whether the evidence permits an inference that the lock gates failed due to improper mitring by Crown servants
  3. 3 Whether the preponderance of probability in civil cases suffices to establish negligence

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence produced a preponderance of probability that the gates failed because they were not properly mitred by the Crown’s servants; absent proof of a competing cause and given the duty of care in operating public works, that inference established negligence under s.20(c) and justified affirming the Exchequer Court judgment.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Exchequer Court affirmed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment of the Exchequer Court ([1926] Ex. C.R. 150) affirmed