City of Toronto v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co.

City of Toronto v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co.

Sections 187 and 188 of The Railway Act, 1888 are intra vires the Parliament of Canada as incidental to its power to legislate for federal railways; those sections empower the Railway Committee to order protective works at railway-highway crossings and to apportion the costs between the railway and "any person interested," and a municipality in which the highway is situate is a "person interested" within that statutory scheme; accordingly the Committee had jurisdiction to make the orders apportioning costs and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
(1906) 37 SCR 232
Parties
Appellant / Defendant: City of Toronto; Respondent / Plaintiff: Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 February 1906
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Law; Appeal / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Parliamentary Legislative Power, Railway Crossings, Statutory Interpretation, Municipal Liability, Apportionment of Costs, Administrative Discretion of Statutory Tribunals
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Railway Law Municipal Law Administrative Law Parliamentary Legislative Power Railway Crossings Statutory Interpretation Municipal Liability +2 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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

City of Toronto

Appellant / Defendant

Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada

Respondent / Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Law; Appeal / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether ss.187–188 of The Railway Act, 1888 are intra vires of the Parliament of Canada
  2. 2 Whether a municipality is a "person interested" within the meaning of s.188 and therefore liable to contribute to costs
  3. 3 Whether the Railway Committee had jurisdiction to apportion costs and make the orders in question

Ratio Decidendi

Sections 187 and 188 of The Railway Act, 1888 are intra vires the Parliament of Canada as incidental to its power to legislate for federal railways; those sections empower the Railway Committee to order protective works at railway-highway crossings and to apportion the costs between the railway and "any person interested," and a municipality in which the highway is situate is a "person interested" within that statutory scheme; accordingly the Committee had jurisdiction to make the orders apportioning costs and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs