Algoma Central and Hudson Bay Railway Co. v. Manitoba Pool Elevators Ltd.

Algoma Central and Hudson Bay Railway Co. v. Manitoba Pool Elevators Ltd.

Appeal dismissed because findings of fact established no causative negligence by respondents: plaintiffs did not rely on Lakehead's pamphlet, the hydrographic chart warned of lesser depths, no evidence of obstructions, and the superintendent's casual oral remark did not constitute a warranty or sufficient basis for reasonable reliance that led to the grounding.

Citation
[1966] SCR 359
Parties
Appellant (plaintiff): Algoma Central and Hudson Bay Railway Company; Appellant (plaintiff): Parrish & Heimbecker Limited; Respondent (defendant): Manitoba Pool Elevators Limited; Respondent (defendant): Lakehead Harbour Commissioners
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 January 1966
Procedural Posture
Admiralty Appeal / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Exchequer Court of Canada (ontario Admiralty District)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Ship Grounding, Damages, Reliance on Harbour Information, Warranty by Representation, Duty to Warn
Source Language
English
Maritime Law Admiralty Transportation Negligence Ship Grounding Damages Reliance on Harbour Information Warranty by Representation +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Algoma Central and Hudson Bay Railway Company

Appellant (plaintiff)

Parrish & Heimbecker Limited

Appellant (plaintiff)

Manitoba Pool Elevators Limited

Respondent (defendant)

Lakehead Harbour Commissioners

Respondent (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Admiralty Appeal / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Exchequer Court of Canada (ontario Admiralty District)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondents were negligent causing the grounding and damage
  2. 2 Whether Lakehead Harbour Commissioners’ published pamphlet was misleading and actionable
  3. 3 Whether the superintendent's oral assurance constituted an express warranty or actionable representation

Ratio Decidendi

Appeal dismissed because findings of fact established no causative negligence by respondents: plaintiffs did not rely on Lakehead's pamphlet, the hydrographic chart warned of lesser depths, no evidence of obstructions, and the superintendent's casual oral remark did not constitute a warranty or sufficient basis for reasonable reliance that led to the grounding.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs