Linton Construction Ltd. v. C.N.R.

Linton Construction Ltd. v. C.N.R.

Majority held Order 49274 effectively prescribed the terms and conditions as law and those terms exempt the telegraph company from liability for errors or delays in unrepeated telegrams caused by negligence even where the sender did not use the company form; the facts showed negligent performance rather than a fundamental breach, so the exemption applied and appellant’s action failed.

Citation
[1975] 2 SCR 678
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Linton Construction Ltd.; Defendant/respondent: Canadian National Railway Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 October 1974
Procedural Posture
Civil (tort/contract Negligence) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Appellate Division judgment affirmed (dissenting opinions by Laskin C.J., Spence, Dickson and Beetz JJ.)
Legal Topics
Exemption Clause, Fundamental Breach, Statutory Orders, Telegraph Liability, Interpretation of Regulatory Orders
Source Language
English
Transportation Contract Tort Administrative Law Regulatory Law Exemption Clause Fundamental Breach Statutory Orders +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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Linton Construction Ltd.

Plaintiff/appellant

Canadian National Railway Company

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil (tort/contract Negligence) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether statutory terms and conditions prescribed by Board orders exempt the carrier from liability where sender did not use the company form
  2. 2 Whether Order 49274 and subsequent Orders/T-40/M-1 gave the exemption clause force of law irrespective of the physical form used by the sender
  3. 3 Whether the respondent’s conduct amounted to a fundamental breach disentitling it to rely on an exemption clause

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held Order 49274 effectively prescribed the terms and conditions as law and those terms exempt the telegraph company from liability for errors or delays in unrepeated telegrams caused by negligence even where the sender did not use the company form; the facts showed negligent performance rather than a fundamental breach, so the exemption applied and appellant’s action failed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Appellate Division judgment affirmed (dissenting opinions by Laskin C.J., Spence, Dickson and Beetz JJ.)

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs; Appellate Division judgment affirmed