The Upper Ottawa Improvement Co. v. Hydro-Electric Power Commission (Ontario)
The plaintiffs’ claim failed because the common law riparian right to dam rivers for power remains in force and the statutory regime grants log-owners only an easement/right of passage implemented by slides/aprons and not a proprietary right to the river’s natural current; paragraph 44 reserved existing rights only and did not enlarge them, so the defendant’s lawful damming and approved slides did not give rise to actionable interference—appeal dismissed.
- Citation
- [1961] SCR 486
- Parties
- Plaintiff/appellant: The Upper Ottawa Improvement Company; Plaintiff/appellant: Canadian International Paper Company; Plaintiff/appellant: Consolidated Paper Corporation Ltd.; Plaintiff/appellant: The E.B. Eddy Company; Plaintiff/appellant: Gillies Bros. & Co. Ltd.; Defendant/respondent: The Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 15 May 1961
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Supreme Court of Canada Decision on Appeal From the Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Riparian Rights, Log Driving, Easement/right of Passage, Dam Construction, Navigation, Statutory Reservation of Rights
- Source Language
- English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
The Upper Ottawa Improvement Company
Plaintiff/appellant
Canadian International Paper Company
Plaintiff/appellant
Consolidated Paper Corporation Ltd.
Plaintiff/appellant
The E.B. Eddy Company
Plaintiff/appellant
Gillies Bros. & Co. Ltd.
Plaintiff/appellant
The Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario
Defendant/respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court of Canada Decision on Appeal From the Court of Appeal for Ontario
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether riparian owners retain common law right to dam rivers for power despite statutory rights of log-owners
- 2 Whether statutory and agreement provisions (including para.44) grant log-owners a right to the benefit of the natural current (free floating)
- 3 Whether the defendant’s exercise of damming rights and use of approved slides/aprons unlawfully interfered with the plaintiffs’ rights
Ratio Decidendi
The plaintiffs’ claim failed because the common law riparian right to dam rivers for power remains in force and the statutory regime grants log-owners only an easement/right of passage implemented by slides/aprons and not a proprietary right to the river’s natural current; paragraph 44 reserved existing rights only and did not enlarge them, so the defendant’s lawful damming and approved slides did not give rise to actionable interference—appeal dismissed.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Costs awarded to respondent including costs of the motion of May 30, 1960
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment