Archibald v. The Queen
- Citation
- (1894) 23 SCR 147
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 13 March 1894
- Posture
- Torts Claim for Compensation for Injury Caused by Public Work / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Exchequer Court Decision
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 13 March 1894
- Posture
- Torts Claim for Compensation for Injury Caused by Public Work / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Exchequer Court Decision
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The appeal was dismissed because the right alleged to have been interfered with by the construction of the bridge was a public right common to all; interference with such a public right does not entitle an individual claimant to compensation.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs
Orders
- Appeal dismissed with costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Archibald
Appellant/suppliant Counsel: CodeThe Queen
Respondent Counsel: Borden Q.C.03
Procedural history
Posture
Torts Claim for Compensation for Injury Caused by Public Work / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Exchequer Court Decision
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether an individual is entitled to compensation where a public work interferes with a right that is common to the public
- 02
Whether the construction of a bridge in connection with a railway that prevents customary use of waterways creates a private compensable right
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The suppliant (Archibald) alleged that construction of a bridge across a pond in connection with the Cape Breton Railway prevented him from rafting lumber to his former shipping point and sought compensation for injury to his property and business.
- Respondent
- The Crown/respondent, supported by the Exchequer Court decision, contended that the right alleged to be interfered with was a right common to the public and that an individual affected by such interference is not entitled to compensation.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Exchequer Court decision affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada (this case)
Interference with a right common to the public does not, per se, give rise to a right to compensation for an individual claimant.
- 02
Common law principle applied by the Exchequer Court and upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada
The Crown is not liable to pay compensation for injuries resulting from lawful public works where only public rights (not particular private rights) are affected.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the right alleged to have been interfered with by the construction of the bridge was a public right common to all; interference with such a public right does not entitle an individual claimant to compensation.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs
- Appeal dismissed with costs.
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 13 March 1894
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Supreme Court of Canada
Judgment· 13 March 1894
Archibald v. The Queen Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1894-03-13 Report (1894) 23 SCR 147 Judges Taschereau, Henri-Elzéar; Sedgewick, Robert; King, George Edwin; Gwynne, John Wellington On appeal from Federal Court of Appeal Subjects Torts Decision Content Supreme Court of Canada Archibald v. The Queen (1894) 23 SCR 147 Date: 1894-03-13 Archibald v. The Queen 1893: Dec. 2; 1894: Mar.
13. Present:—Sir Henry Strong C.J., and Founder, Taschereau, Gwynne and King JJ. Crown—Construction of public work—Interference with public rights— Injury to private owner. Appeal from a decision of the Exchequer Court[1], refusing compensation to the suppliant for injury to his property by the construction of a public work. The suppliant owns a saw-mill in Cape Breton, and claims that he was prevented from rafting his lumber to a shipping point as formerly by the construction of a bridge across a pond some distance from the mill, in connection with the building of the Cape Breton Railway. The Exchequer Court held that the right alleged to be interfered with was a right common to the public, and that an individual affected by the interference was not entitled to compensation. The Supreme Court dismissed with costs an appeal from this decision. Appeal dismissed with costs. Code for appellant. Borden Q.C. for respondent. [1] 3 Ex.C. R. 251.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.