Street et al. v. Ottawa Valley Power Co.

Street et al. v. Ottawa Valley Power Co.

Trial judge's finding of no compensable damage was supported by evidence and should not be disturbed; and by re-enacting prior statutory language and judicial construction the Quebec legislature did not, by substituting the Public Service Commission for experts under s.12(2), clearly remove the Superior Court's jurisdiction to hear and determine damages absent more explicit language; the unpleaded interprovincial competence argument was not open on appeal.

Citation
[1940] SCR 40
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Douglas Richmond Street; Plaintiff/appellant: Norman Brownlee; Defendant/respondent: Ottawa Valley Power Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 November 1939
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada (on Appeal From Court of King's Bench, Quebec)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Court of King's Bench (affirming trial court dismissal) affirmed.
Legal Topics
Damages, Jurisdiction, Statutory Interpretation, Riparian Rights, Delegation to Administrative Tribunal
Source Language
English
Maritime Law Watercourse Law Property Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law (provincial Competence) Damages Jurisdiction Statutory Interpretation +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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Douglas Richmond Street

Plaintiff/appellant

Norman Brownlee

Plaintiff/appellant

Ottawa Valley Power Company

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada (on Appeal From Court of King's Bench, Quebec)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants were entitled to damages under s.12 of the Quebec Watercourse Act despite waters not raised above ordinary high water mark
  2. 2 Whether the Superior Court retained jurisdiction to entertain and assess damages under s.12 given subsection allocating assessment to the Quebec Public Service Commission
  3. 3 Whether the dam constituted a single interprovincial work beyond Quebec's legislative competence

Ratio Decidendi

Trial judge's finding of no compensable damage was supported by evidence and should not be disturbed; and by re-enacting prior statutory language and judicial construction the Quebec legislature did not, by substituting the Public Service Commission for experts under s.12(2), clearly remove the Superior Court's jurisdiction to hear and determine damages absent more explicit language; the unpleaded interprovincial competence argument was not open on appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Court of King's Bench (affirming trial court dismissal) affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Judgment of the Court of King's Bench (Q.R. 65 K.B. 504) affirming trial judgment dismissing plaintiffs' action is affirmed.