Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Co. v. British Columbia Express Co.

Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Co. v. British Columbia Express Co.

Majority held plaintiff failed to prove that the construction of the bridge was the juridical cause of the loss of business in late 1913; although statutory approvals were conditional, the Department's letter did not amount to a direction that prevented construction and, on the facts, no special damage from the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
(1916) 55 SCR 328
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company; Respondent/plaintiff: British Columbia Express Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 December 1916
Procedural Posture
Torts Public Nuisance / Navigation Obstruction / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for British Columbia; Final Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of trial judge restored dismissing plaintiff's claim for 1913 and 1914; costs to appellant.
Legal Topics
Obstruction of Navigable Water, Causation, Statutory Conditions on Bridge Construction, Riparian Rights, Damages for Injuria Sine Damno
Source Language
english
Torts Navigation Law Administrative Law Railway Regulation Public Nuisance Obstruction of Navigable Water Causation Statutory Conditions on Bridge Construction +2 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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company

Appellant/defendant

British Columbia Express Company

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Torts Public Nuisance / Navigation Obstruction / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for British Columbia; Final Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendant lawfully constructed a fixed low bridge across a navigable river under statutory approvals and conditions
  2. 2 Whether Department of Public Works or Board of Railway Commissioners had to make a prior finding before requiring passageways
  3. 3 Whether the bridge construction was the cause of plaintiff's non‑use and loss of profits in late 1913

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held plaintiff failed to prove that the construction of the bridge was the juridical cause of the loss of business in late 1913; although statutory approvals were conditional, the Department's letter did not amount to a direction that prevented construction and, on the facts, no special damage from the bridge was proven; appeal allowed and trial judge's dismissal restored (costs to appellant).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of trial judge restored dismissing plaintiff's claim for 1913 and 1914; costs to appellant.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Judgment of trial judge restored dismissing the plaintiff's action (no damages awarded for 1913 or 1914)