Attorney-General For Canada v. Ritchie Contracting and Supply Co.

Attorney-General For Canada v. Ritchie Contracting and Supply Co.

English Bay was not a "public harbour" within the meaning of item 2 of the third schedule to the British North America Act at the date British Columbia entered the Union (1871); consequently the bed and foreshore (including Spanish Bank) remained provincial property and the Dominion's later proclamation and statute did not transfer ownership. The Dominion failed to establish a jurisdictional or proprietary basis to enjoin removal of sand.

Citation
(1915) 52 SCR 78
Parties
Appellant (plaintiff): Attorney-General for Canada; Appellant (plaintiff): Vancouver Harbour Commissioners; Respondent (defendant): Ritchie Contracting and Supply Company; Respondent (defendant): Attorney-General for British Columbia
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 November 1915
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Law / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (final Judgment)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia affirmed.
Legal Topics
Public Harbours, Crown Property, Foreshore Ownership, Division of Powers, Navigation and Shipping, Section 108 BNA Act 1867
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Property Law Maritime Law Administrative Law Public Harbours Crown Property Foreshore Ownership Division of Powers +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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attorney-General for Canada

Appellant (plaintiff)

Vancouver Harbour Commissioners

Appellant (plaintiff)

Ritchie Contracting and Supply Company

Respondent (defendant)

Attorney-General for British Columbia

Respondent (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Law / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (final Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether English Bay was a "public harbour" within the meaning of item 2 of the third schedule to the British North America Act, 1867 at the date British Columbia entered the Union (1871)
  2. 2 Whether ownership of the bed and foreshore (Spanish Bank) passed to the Dominion under s.108 as part of a public harbour
  3. 3 Whether subsequent Dominion proclamation (1912) or statute (1913) transferred ownership to the Dominion

Ratio Decidendi

English Bay was not a "public harbour" within the meaning of item 2 of the third schedule to the British North America Act at the date British Columbia entered the Union (1871); consequently the bed and foreshore (including Spanish Bank) remained provincial property and the Dominion's later proclamation and statute did not transfer ownership. The Dominion failed to establish a jurisdictional or proprietary basis to enjoin removal of sand.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia affirmed