Grand Trunk Railway Co. v. Therrien

Grand Trunk Railway Co. v. Therrien

Because the plaintiff owned land only on one side of the railway, he was not within the class of persons for whom section 191 of the Railway Act or the incorporated Railway Clauses Consolidation Act creates a statutory obligation to provide farm crossings; special Grand Trunk statutes do not enlarge that obligation and provincial regulation cannot alter structural conditions of federally-regulated railways; accordingly the company had no statutory duty to supply the crossing and the action fails.

Citation
(1900) 30 SCR 485
Parties
Appellant/defendant: The Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada; Respondent/plaintiff: Joseph Therrien
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 October 1900
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (property/servitude) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Superior Court (sitting in Review) Quebec
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs; action dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Servitude, Farm Crossings, Right of Way, Jurisdiction of Provincial Legislature Over Federal Railways, Interpretation of Railway Statutes
Source Language
English
Property Railway Law Constitutional Law Statutory Interpretation Civil Code Servitude Farm Crossings Right of Way +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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada

Appellant/defendant

Joseph Therrien

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (property/servitude) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Superior Court (sitting in Review) Quebec

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an owner whose land adjoins a railway on one side only is entitled to a statutory farm crossing under The Railway Act of Canada s.191
  2. 2 Whether special incorporation statutes of the Grand Trunk Railway impose greater crossing liabilities than the general Railway Act
  3. 3 Whether provincial legislation may require alterations to crossings or the structural condition of the roadbed of federally-regulated railways

Ratio Decidendi

Because the plaintiff owned land only on one side of the railway, he was not within the class of persons for whom section 191 of the Railway Act or the incorporated Railway Clauses Consolidation Act creates a statutory obligation to provide farm crossings; special Grand Trunk statutes do not enlarge that obligation and provincial regulation cannot alter structural conditions of federally-regulated railways; accordingly the company had no statutory duty to supply the crossing and the action fails.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs; action dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Action dismissed with costs