Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The court dismissed West Point’s Railway Act expropriation claim, holding the Railway Safety Act is not a “special Act” and Part 7 powers did not apply.
The Court held that "railway line" as used in the Canada Transportation Act definition of "utility crossing" includes the railway right of way contiguous to tracks; accordingly the Agency had jurisdiction to authorize the District's rerouting works under s.101(3); the Agency's conclusion that the 1979 agreement did not contemplate the rerouting works did not disclose an extricable error of law and thus was not reviewable on this statutory appeal; the appeal was dismissed and BNSF ordered to pay the District's costs.
Source excerpt
British Columbia Court of Appeal considered whether a rail right of way over reserve land remained actually required for railway purposes and whether reversion had been triggered.
The appeal is dismissed because the appellant raised primarily fact‑intensive challenges to the Agency's weighing of relative benefits under s.16(4)/s.101(4), the Agency's interpretation and application were not unreasonable, the Agency policy was non‑binding and permissibly departed from on the facts, and there was no procedural‑fairness breach once the reasons are read against the record.
Source excerpt
The application judge erred: the 1906 Agreement unambiguously granted a perpetual right to cross by 'vehicle' which, read in context and given the terms 'perpetual' and 'in perpetuity', includes modern motor vehicles; CN's obligation to maintain the combined bridge in perpetuity therefore encompasses keeping the roadways open for vehicular traffic and CN breached by refusing to reopen them; Thunder Bay had no onus to propose specific remedial works — CN must decide and implement necessary maintenance or repairs to reopen the bridge.
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed because the Agency’s determinations were lawful and within a range of reasonable outcomes: AADT increased from 26,000 to 37,600 so the Agency reasonably classified the work as reconstruction requiring seven lanes; the Agency permissibly apportioned costs 85:15 based on reconstruction and historical shared responsibility and CP’s continued benefit; the absence of direct evidence of increased rail traffic was not fatal because CP continued to benefit from the grade separation; and there was no procedural fairness breach because CP had available remedies (section 24 discl…
Source excerpt
The court held Southern Railway vicariously liable after finding the crossing signals failed and conductor Cohen breached his duty to keep a proper lookout.
The Supreme Court of British Columbia granted an adjournment of a particulars application, finding enough differences from earlier particulars and no demonstrated prejudice.
Majority: The Agency had jurisdiction under s.116(1) to investigate a complaint by a terminal operator because the phrase "any person" encompasses parties in the logistics chain directly affected by reduced service; the Agency reasonably found CN breached its s.113 obligations by unilaterally reducing weekday switches and lawfully exercised s.116(4) authority to order restoration of a second weekday switch and to limit tariff application for switches of six or more cars; the appeal is dismissed with costs.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court held that the WSL shipping document was a waybill, applied COGSA, treated a pallet as a package, and limited WSL’s liability to USD 500 per package.
Explore more
