Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Guthrie

Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Guthrie

Permissive user under a railway trestle by the owner of adjacent land does not mature into a prescriptive easement or an entitlement to a farm crossing where the railway has acquired fee and rights for railway purposes (extinguishing prior access) and where substitution of an embankment is a lawful statutory/improvement act that permissive user cannot prevent.

Citation
(1901) 31 SCR 155
Parties
Appellant (defendant): Canadian Pacific Railway Co.; Respondent (plaintiff): George Guthrie; Respondent (plaintiff): Catharine Guthrie, Executor and Executrix of the Estate of David Guthrie, Deceased; Respondent (plaintiff): John D. Guthrie
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 February 1901
Procedural Posture
Property Law Appeal Concerning Easement/right of Way / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario; Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs; injunction dissolved; action dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Right of Way, User, Farm Crossing, Prescriptive Title, Railway Improvements (trestle Vs Embankment)
Source Language
English
Property Law Easements Prescription Railway Law Right of Way User Farm Crossing Prescriptive Title +1 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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Canadian Pacific Railway Co.

Appellant (defendant)

George Guthrie

Respondent (plaintiff)

Catharine Guthrie, Executor and Executrix of the Estate of David Guthrie, Deceased

Respondent (plaintiff)

John D. Guthrie

Respondent (plaintiff)

Procedural Posture

Property Law Appeal Concerning Easement/right of Way / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario; Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether long continued use under a railway trestle could ripen into a prescriptive right of way against the railway company
  2. 2 Whether the owner of the adjacent lot was entitled to a statutory farm crossing across railway lands
  3. 3 Whether substitution of an embankment for a trestle could be prevented by alleged prescriptive rights

Ratio Decidendi

Permissive user under a railway trestle by the owner of adjacent land does not mature into a prescriptive easement or an entitlement to a farm crossing where the railway has acquired fee and rights for railway purposes (extinguishing prior access) and where substitution of an embankment is a lawful statutory/improvement act that permissive user cannot prevent.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs; injunction dissolved; action dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Allow appeal with costs
  • Dissolve injunction