The King v. Canadian Pacific Ry. Co.

The King v. Canadian Pacific Ry. Co.

The appeal was dismissed because the compensation paid by the Crown under a statutory obligation was too remote — an independent intervening cause — to be recoverable as damages from the negligent third party; the pleading and evidence did not support recovery under per quod servitium amisit or any indemnity-based claim.

Citation
[1947] SCR 185
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: His Majesty The King on the information of the Attorney‑General of Canada; Defendant/respondent: The Canadian Pacific Railway Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 February 1947
Procedural Posture
Tort Damages (employer Recovery of Statutory Compensation) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Judgment of the Exchequer Court of Canada (action Dismissed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Proximate Cause, Statutory Compensation, Per Quod Servitium Amisit, Independent Intervening Cause, Foreseeability
Source Language
English
Torts Remoteness Workmen's Compensation Employers' Remedies Causation Proximate Cause Statutory Compensation Per Quod Servitium Amisit +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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

His Majesty The King on the information of the Attorney‑General of Canada

Plaintiff/appellant

The Canadian Pacific Railway Company

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Tort Damages (employer Recovery of Statutory Compensation) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Judgment of the Exchequer Court of Canada (action Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Crown can recover statutory compensation paid to its injured employee from a negligent third party
  2. 2 Whether statutory payments are a proximate/direct consequence of the defendant's negligence or too remote
  3. 3 Whether the claim could properly proceed as an action per quod servitium amisit

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the compensation paid by the Crown under a statutory obligation was too remote — an independent intervening cause — to be recoverable as damages from the negligent third party; the pleading and evidence did not support recovery under per quod servitium amisit or any indemnity-based claim.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs