Kearney v. Oakes

Kearney v. Oakes

Majority held contractors for construction of the Dartmouth branch were not 'employees' or 'servants' of the Department within s.109 and therefore defendants were not protected by the notice provision; further, statutory authority to take and enter land required compliance with enactments (including where applicable order‑in‑council or deposit of plan and metes and bounds) and absent necessary compliance the Crown's contractors could be liable in trespass; appeal allowed.

Citation
(1890) 18 SCR 148
Parties
Appellant (plaintiff): Maria Kearney; Respondent (defendant): Stephen D. Oakes; Respondent (defendant): John Paw
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 November 1890
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal — Trespass/expropriation / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Supreme Court of Nova Scotia Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs; judgment of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia reversed
Legal Topics
Expropriation, Notice of Action, Construction of Term 'employee', Contractor V. Employee, Vesting of Land by Plan Deposit, Order‑in‑council Authority, Trespass
Source Language
English
Property Tort Administrative Law Statutory Interpretation Public Law Expropriation Notice of Action Construction of Term 'employee' +4 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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maria Kearney

Appellant (plaintiff)

Stephen D. Oakes

Respondent (defendant)

John Paw

Respondent (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal — Trespass/expropriation / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Supreme Court of Nova Scotia Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether contractors with the Crown are 'employees' or 'servants' of the Department within s.109 of the Government Railway Act 1881 and thus entitled to statutory notice of action
  2. 2 Whether the Minister or contractors had lawful authority to enter and occupy the plaintiff's land absent required statutory steps (order‑in‑council or deposit of plan and metes and bounds)
  3. 3 Whether deposit of a plan and description under s.10 vests land in the Crown when statutory requisites (metes and bounds) are not complied with

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held contractors for construction of the Dartmouth branch were not 'employees' or 'servants' of the Department within s.109 and therefore defendants were not protected by the notice provision; further, statutory authority to take and enter land required compliance with enactments (including where applicable order‑in‑council or deposit of plan and metes and bounds) and absent necessary compliance the Crown's contractors could be liable in trespass; appeal allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs; judgment of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia reversed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Judgment of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia reversed