Herrenknecht Tunnelling Systems USA Inc. v. Canadian Pacific Railway Co.

Herrenknecht Tunnelling Systems USA Inc. v. Canadian Pacific Railway Co.

The Federal Court has jurisdiction to entertain the action because paragraph 23(c) of the Federal Court Act provides a statutory grant of jurisdiction over works and undertakings connecting provinces, the Canada Transportation Act (including ss.113(1) and 116(5)) constitutes an existing body of federal law essential to the disposition of the case and a "law of Canada" under s.101, and that jurisdiction has not been otherwise specially assigned such as to oust the Court's jurisdiction.

Citation
2002 FCT 1089
Parties
Applicant/plaintiff: Herrenknecht Tunnelling Systems USA Inc.; Applicant/plaintiff: Danzas Inc. doing business as Danzas AEI Intercontinental; Respondent/defendant: Canadian Pacific Railway Company; Respondent/defendant: Canadian Pacific Railway Limited; Respondent/defendant: RaiLink Canada Ltd.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 October 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Carriage/transportation Dispute / Pre Trial Motion to Determine Jurisdiction (rule 220)
Outcome
Motion granted; Court finds it has jurisdiction to entertain the action against the named defendants.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Canada Transportation Act Interpretation, Federal Court Act Section 23, Railway Liability, Constitutional Division of Powers (s.92 Head 10)
Source Language
English
Federal Court Jurisdiction Transportation Law Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Jurisdiction Canada Transportation Act Interpretation Federal Court Act Section 23 Railway Liability +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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Herrenknecht Tunnelling Systems USA Inc.

Applicant/plaintiff

Danzas Inc. doing business as Danzas AEI Intercontinental

Applicant/plaintiff

Canadian Pacific Railway Company

Respondent/defendant

Canadian Pacific Railway Limited

Respondent/defendant

RaiLink Canada Ltd.

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Carriage/transportation Dispute / Pre Trial Motion to Determine Jurisdiction (rule 220)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Federal Court has jurisdiction under s.23 of the Federal Court Act to hear this action
  2. 2 Whether provisions of the Canada Transportation Act (ss.113(1) and 116(5)) constitute a body of federal law essential to the disposition of the case
  3. 3 Whether the jurisdiction is ousted or otherwise specially assigned to another body

Ratio Decidendi

The Federal Court has jurisdiction to entertain the action because paragraph 23(c) of the Federal Court Act provides a statutory grant of jurisdiction over works and undertakings connecting provinces, the Canada Transportation Act (including ss.113(1) and 116(5)) constitutes an existing body of federal law essential to the disposition of the case and a "law of Canada" under s.101, and that jurisdiction has not been otherwise specially assigned such as to oust the Court's jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Motion granted; Court finds it has jurisdiction to entertain the action against the named defendants.

Orders

  • This Court finds that it has jurisdiction to entertain this action against the named Defendants under section 23 of the Federal Court Act, subsections 113(1) and 116(5) of the Canada Transportation Act and head 10(a) in section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867.
  • Costs of the motion are in the cause.