Canadian Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. Chesworth

Canadian Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. Chesworth

The evidence did not justify a finding that any default in maintaining the crossing sign materially contributed to the accident; therefore the Court allowed the appeal, reversed the Court of Appeal, and the respondent's action was dismissed; additionally the Board's s.309 finding was not admissible to establish causation.

Citation
[1941] SCR 201
Parties
Appellant / Defendant: Canadian Northern Pacific Railway Company; Respondent / Plaintiff: Peter Chesworth
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 October 1940
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (personal Injury Railway Crossing) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of the Court of Appeal reversed; respondent's action dismissed.
Legal Topics
Level Crossing, Maintenance of Crossing Sign, Railway Act Section 267, Railway Act Section 309, Admissibility of Administrative Findings, Causation, Standard of Appellate Review
Source Language
English
Transportation Railway Law Negligence Evidence Administrative Law Level Crossing Maintenance of Crossing Sign Railway Act Section 267 +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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Canadian Northern Pacific Railway Company

Appellant / Defendant

Peter Chesworth

Respondent / Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (personal Injury Railway Crossing) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the railway's alleged default in maintaining the crossing sign materially contributed to the collision
  2. 2 Whether the Board of Railway Commissioners' post‑accident finding under s.309 was admissible or binding in the civil action
  3. 3 Standard of appellate review of findings of fact

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence did not justify a finding that any default in maintaining the crossing sign materially contributed to the accident; therefore the Court allowed the appeal, reversed the Court of Appeal, and the respondent's action was dismissed; additionally the Board's s.309 finding was not admissible to establish causation.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of the Court of Appeal reversed; respondent's action dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs (if asked for)
  • Judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia reversed