Chaudière Machine & Foundry Co. v. Canada Atlantic Rway. Co.

Chaudière Machine & Foundry Co. v. Canada Atlantic Rway. Co.

Because the embankment and grade-raising were wrongful acts committed in 1888, the cause of action accrued at that time and any damages should have been assessed once; the six‑year limitation therefore barred the claim when instituted in 1900 and a later purchaser cannot revive a barred cause of action.

Citation
(1902) 33 SCR 11
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Chaudière Machine and Foundry Company; Respondent/defendant: Canada Atlantic Railway Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 December 1902
Procedural Posture
Tort — Nuisance and Trespass / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario; Final Judgment on Merits
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Nuisance, Trespass, Continuing Damage, Limitation of Actions, Remedies
Source Language
English
Municipal Law Tort Law Property Law Nuisance Trespass Continuing Damage Limitation of Actions Remedies

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chaudière Machine and Foundry Company

Appellant/plaintiff

Canada Atlantic Railway Company

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Tort — Nuisance and Trespass / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario; Final Judgment on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the embankment and raised grade constituted a continuing nuisance or a single actionable trespass occurring in 1888
  2. 2 Whether a subsequent purchaser (1895) can sue for continuing damage when the original wrongful act occurred more than six years earlier
  3. 3 Whether limitation bars the action and whether a conveyance revives a barred cause of action

Ratio Decidendi

Because the embankment and grade-raising were wrongful acts committed in 1888, the cause of action accrued at that time and any damages should have been assessed once; the six‑year limitation therefore barred the claim when instituted in 1900 and a later purchaser cannot revive a barred cause of action.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs