MacKenzie v. Grand Trunk Pacific Ry. Co.

MacKenzie v. Grand Trunk Pacific Ry. Co.

Section 6(c) does not enlarge the substantive right conferred by s.4; because the appellant's act (passing between cars) was not reasonably incidental to his employment it did not 'arise out of' the employment and therefore he was not entitled to compensation under the Act.

Citation
[1926] SCR 178
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: John William Mackenzie; Respondent/defendant: The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 November 1925
Procedural Posture
Workmen's Compensation Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Workmen's Compensation, Arising Out of and in the Course of Employment, Employer Liability, Negligence, Scope of Statutory Defences
Source Language
English
Labour Law Employment Law Tort Law Statutory Interpretation Workmen's Compensation Arising Out of and in the Course of Employment Employer Liability Negligence +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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John William Mackenzie

Appellant/plaintiff

The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Workmen's Compensation Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the injury arose out of and in the course of employment
  2. 2 Whether s.6(c) of the Saskatchewan Act enlarges or alters the right conferred by s.4
  3. 3 Whether employee negligence precludes compensation under the statute

Ratio Decidendi

Section 6(c) does not enlarge the substantive right conferred by s.4; because the appellant's act (passing between cars) was not reasonably incidental to his employment it did not 'arise out of' the employment and therefore he was not entitled to compensation under the Act.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent.