Simmons v. Foster

Simmons v. Foster

Under ss.82-83 of the Crown Lands Act both parties had equal rights to float logs; at the date of the writ appellant had not suffered damage caused by any obstruction so had no private cause of action; respondent's removal/swinging of the boom was a lawful exercise of his statutory right to float logs and did not constitute actionable trespass; a declaratory decree as sought would impose an impractical duty on appellant and would not materially assist respondent and therefore should be refused (though one judge dissented on the declaration).

Citation
[1955] SCR 324
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Hugh W. Simmons Limited; Respondent/defendant: Alex Foster
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 March 1955
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (tort: Nuisance/trespass; Declaratory Relief; Water Rights) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Supreme Court of Newfoundland
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part. Appellant's action dismissed for lack of cause of action at date of writ; respondent's counterclaim for a declaratory order largely refused (declaration struck out as impractical), with one judge dissenting on refusal.
Legal Topics
Right to Float Logs, Obstruction to Navigable Waters, Nuisance, Trespass, Declaratory Relief, Statutory Interpretation of Crown Lands Act, Dam Construction Regulation
Source Language
English
Water Law Tort Property Law Civil Procedure Maritime/transportation Law Right to Float Logs Obstruction to Navigable Waters Nuisance +4 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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hugh W. Simmons Limited

Appellant/plaintiff

Alex Foster

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (tort: Nuisance/trespass; Declaratory Relief; Water Rights) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Supreme Court of Newfoundland

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether parties have equal statutory/common law right to float logs on Colinet River and tributaries
  2. 2 Whether appellant had a cause of action at time of issuing writ (prematurity/no damage)
  3. 3 Whether respondent's removal/swinging of appellant's boom and piers constituted trespass or lawful exercise of right

Ratio Decidendi

Under ss.82-83 of the Crown Lands Act both parties had equal rights to float logs; at the date of the writ appellant had not suffered damage caused by any obstruction so had no private cause of action; respondent's removal/swinging of the boom was a lawful exercise of his statutory right to float logs and did not constitute actionable trespass; a declaratory decree as sought would impose an impractical duty on appellant and would not materially assist respondent and therefore should be refused (though one judge dissented on the declaration).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part. Appellant's action dismissed for lack of cause of action at date of writ; respondent's counterclaim for a declaratory order largely refused (declaration struck out as impractical), with one judge dissenting on refusal.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's (appellant's) action dismissed for failure to establish a cause of action at the date of the writ
  • Respondent's counterclaim for a declaration of entitlement to unobstructed natural flow of Colinet River and its tributaries refused (declaration struck out from Court of Appeal judgment)