Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v Notre Dame de Bonsecours

Last updated

Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Notre Dame de Bonsecours
Fassett QC.jpg
The railway through Notre-Dame-de-Bonsecours (now the village of Fassett)
Court Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
Full case nameCanadian Pacific Railway Company v Corporation of the Parish of Notre Dame de Bonsecours
DecidedMarch 24, 1899
Citation(s)
Case history
Appealed fromCie de Chemin de Fer Canadien du Pacifique v Notre-Dame-de-Bonsecours (Paroisse), 1897 CarswellQue 80, 7 Que. QB 121 Quebec Court of Queen's Bench Maple Leaf (from roundel).svg
Court membership
Judges sitting Earl of Halsbury, LC
Lord Watson
Lord Hobhouse
Lord Macnaghten
Lord Morris
Lord Shand
Lord Davey
Case opinions
Provincial laws apply to federally regulated railways, provided the laws do not regulate the construction and management of the railway
Decision byLord Watson
Keywords
Constitutional division of powers; municipal law; federally regulated works and undertakings

Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v Notre Dame de Bonsecours is a Canadian constitutional law decision, dealing with the powers of the provinces under the Constitution Act, 1867 (formerly the British North America Act, 1867). The point in issue was whether the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, a federally regulated railway, was required to comply with an order issued by a municipality under provincial law. The municipal order required the CPR Co. to clean a ditch beside its rail line, which had become blocked and flooded neighbouring land, under penalty of $20 per day until the ditch was cleared.

Contents

The case arose in the province of Quebec and was appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Britain, at that time the highest court of appeal for the British Empire. The Judicial Committee held that the provincial law applied to the railway provided it did not regulate the structure or operation of the railway.

The case is a foundational case for the scope of provincial legislation over federally regulated works and undertakings, and continues to be cited regularly by the Supreme Court of Canada. It has particular significance in environmental law cases.

Facts

Notre-Dame-de-Bonsecours was a parish municipality, in the Outaouais region of Quebec, incorporated under provincial law. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company, or CPR Co., is a federally incorporated railway company. [1] Its North Shore line, connecting Montreal to Ottawa, crossed through Notre-Dame-de-Bonsecours.

The railway ran parallel to property owned by one Julien Gervais and included a ditch along the property line. The ditch had become blocked, resulting in an overflow of water onto Gervais's property. The municipality served an order on the CPR Co. under the Municipal Code of Quebec, directing it to clear the obstruction in the ditch, under penalty of paying $20 per day for failing to comply with the order. The CPR Co. asserted that it was not bound by provincial law and did not have to comply with the order. [2] That triggered the resulting lawsuit in the courts of Quebec and eventually the Judicial Committee, as the municipality sought to enforce its order and the accumulated penalty of $200. The CPR Co. continued to resist.

Constitutional provisions

The case turned on the division of powers between the federal and provincial governments under the Constitution Act, 1867. [3] Section 92(10)(a) and section 91(29), taken together, assign to the federal Parliament the exclusive power to regulate "Railways,... and other Works and Undertakings connecting the Province with any other or others of the Provinces, or extending beyond the Limits of the Province".

However, the Constitution Act, 1867 also assigns the provinces exclusive jurisdiction over municipalities (s. 92(8)), property and civil rights in the province (s. 92(13)), and local matters (s. 92(16)). The issue was whether the railway, as a federally regulated "work or undertaking" was required to comply with the municipal order to clean its ditch, an order made under provincial law, or whether that order was an impermissible provincial attempt to regulate a federal railway.

Decisions of Quebec courts

The matter went first to the Superior Court of Quebec, which upheld the municipal order to remove the blockage from the ditch. Justice Melhiot held that the railway company was subject to the Municipal Code. [4] [5] [6]

CPR Co. then appealed to the Quebec Court of Queen's Bench, which dismissed the appeal by a 4-1 decision. Speaking for the majority, Justice Bossé resolved the constitutional issue by relying on a provision of the federal Railway Act, which provided that provincial laws passed prior to the Railway Act continued to apply to federally regulated railways. Since the Municipal Code predated the Railway Act, he held that the municipal order was valid. [7]

Justice Hall dissented and held that the Municipal Code did not apply. Instead, he concluded that the municipality was required to apply to the federal Railway Committee for an order under the Railway Act directing the CPR Co. to remove the blockage. [8]

Appeal to Judicial Committee

The CPR Co. then appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, sitting in London. Edward Blake, QC and Tyrell Paine acted for the CPR Co., while Richard Haldane, QC and Gerald Hohler acted for the municipality. The Committee gave its decision on March 24, 1899, dismissing the appeal.

Lord Watson gave the decision for the Committee. He held that the federal government has extensive powers to regulate the construction, repair and alteration of the railway, as well as the management, constitution and powers of the railway company. [9] However, federally regulated railways do not cease to be part of the province in which they are located and continue to be subject to provincial law. [10]

Applying these principles, Lord Watson stated that the province could not attempt to dictate how the railway built the ditch, but if the ditch became choked with rubbish and caused an overflow onto neighbouring property, an order directing that the ditch be cleaned would be within provincial authority. [11] He concluded that on the facts of the case, the municipality was simply seeking to have the obstruction removed, without any change to the structure of the ditch, and therefore the order applied to the CPR Co. [12]

As a result, the Committee advised Her Majesty that the appeal should be dismissed, affirming the judgment below, with court costs to be paid by the railway company. [13]

Significance

Subsequent decisions

The Supreme Court of Canada continues to cite the Notre Dame de Bonsecours case with approval, for the proposition that provincial laws apply to federally regulated works and undertakings as long as they do not attempt to regulate the specifically federal character of the work or undertaking. [14] The case has acquired particular significance in environmental law cases, supporting the proposition that provincial environmental laws relating to the release of pollutants into the environment apply to federally regulated works and undertakings. For example in Ontario v Canadian Pacific, the Supreme Court held, in short reasons from the bench, that an environmental law applied to the CPR Co., citing Notre-Dame-de-Bonsecours. [15] The courts have continued to apply that principle. [16]

More recently, in 2019 the British Columbia Court of Appeal cited Notre-Dame-de-Bonsecours in its decision that the province could not regulate the amount or type of product shipped on an inter-provincial pipeline, as that would intrude on the scope of federal regulation of the operation of the pipeline. [17] [18] In 2020, in a decision from the bench, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed British Columbia's appeal, "for the unanimous reasons of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia." [19]

Department of Justice collection of cases

The federal Department of Justice included this decision in the three volume collection of constitutional decisions of the Judicial Committee which the Department published when appeals to the Judicial Committee were abolished. [20]

Related Research Articles

Canadian federalism involves the current nature and historical development of the federal system in Canada.

The Federal Court of Canada, which succeeded the Exchequer Court of Canada in 1971, was a national court of Canada that had limited jurisdiction to hear certain types of disputes arising under the federal government's legislative jurisdiction. Originally composed of two divisions, the Appellate Division and the Trial Division, in 2003 the Court was split into two separate Courts, the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal. The jurisdiction and powers of the two courts remained largely unchanged from the predecessor divisions.

The court system of Canada forms the country's judiciary, formally known as "The King on the Bench", which interprets the law and is made up of many courts differing in levels of legal superiority and separated by jurisdiction. Some of the courts are federal in nature, while others are provincial or territorial.

In Canadian law, a reference question or reference case is a submission by the federal or a provincial government to the courts asking for an advisory opinion on a major legal issue. Typically the question concerns the constitutionality of legislation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fassett, Quebec</span> Municipality in Quebec, Canada

Fassett is a municipality and village in the Papineau Regional County Municipality in Quebec, Canada, located on the north shore of the Ottawa River east of Montebello.

Canadian constitutional law is the area of Canadian law relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Canada by the courts. All laws of Canada, both provincial and federal, must conform to the Constitution and any laws inconsistent with the Constitution have no force or effect.

Section 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867, also known as the property and civil rights power, grants the provincial legislatures of Canada the authority to legislate on:

13. Property and Civil Rights in the Province.

<i>Russell v R</i> 1882 Canadian constitutional law case

Russell v R is a Canadian constitutional law decision dealing with the power of the federal Parliament. The case was decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, at that time the highest court in the British Empire, including Canada. The Judicial Committee held that the Canada Temperance Act was valid federal legislation under the peace, order and good government power, set out in section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867. The case expanded upon the jurisprudence that was previously discussed in Citizen's Insurance Co. v. Parsons.

<i>Citizens Insurance Co of Canada v Parsons</i> Canadian constitutional law case – 1881

Citizens Insurance Co of Canada v Parsons is a major Canadian constitutional case decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, at that time the highest court of appeal for the British Empire. The case decided a significant issue of the division of powers between the federal Parliament and the provincial legislatures. The approach taken to provincial power, as advocated by Premier Oliver Mowat of Ontario, began to set the constitutional framework for broad provincial powers and a reduction in the centralist vision of Confederation espoused by Prime Minister John A. Macdonald.

<i>Local Prohibition Case</i>

Ontario (AG) v Canada (AG), also known as the Local Prohibition Case, is a significant Canadian constitutional decision by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, at that time the highest court in the British Empire, including Canada. It was one of the first cases to enunciate core principles of the federal peace, order and good government power.

<i>Board of Commerce case</i>

Re Board of Commerce Act 1919 and the Combines and Fair Prices Act 1919, commonly known as the Board of Commerce case, is a Canadian constitutional decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in which the "emergency doctrine" under the federal power of peace, order and good government was first created.

<i>Toronto Electric Commissioners v Snider</i>

Toronto Electric Commissioners v Snider is a Canadian constitutional decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council where the Council struck down the federal Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, precursor to the Canada Labour Code. The Court identified matters in relation to labour to be within the exclusive competence of the province in the property and civil rights power under section 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867. This decision is considered one of the high-water marks of the council's interpretation of the Constitution in favour of the provinces.

Section 91(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867, also known as the trade and commerce power, grants the Parliament of Canada the authority to legislate on:

2. The Regulation of Trade and Commerce.

In Canadian Constitutional law, interjurisdictional immunity is the legal doctrine that determines which legislation arising from one level of jurisdiction may be applicable to matters covered at another level. Interjurisdictional immunity is an exception to the pith and substance doctrine, as it stipulates that there is a core to each federal subject matter that cannot be reached by provincial laws. While a provincial law that imposes a tax on banks may be ruled intra vires, as it is not within the protected core of banking, a provincial law that limits the rights of creditors to enforce their debts would strike at such a core and be ruled inapplicable.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Notre-Dame-de-Bonsecours, Quebec</span> Municipality in Quebec, Canada

Notre-Dame-de-Bonsecours is a municipality in the Outaouais region of Quebec, Canada. It is located along the Ottawa River, about 55 kilometres (34 mi) east of Gatineau. It was formerly known as Notre-Dame-de-Bon-Secours-Partie-Nord. It is the least populated municipality in the Papineau Regional County Municipality.

<i>Dow v Black</i> Canadian constitutional law case – 1875

Dow v Black is a Canadian constitutional law decision. It was one of the first major cases examining in detail the division of powers between the federal Parliament and the provincial Legislatures, set out in the Constitution Act, 1867. The issue was whether a provincial statute which authorised the municipality of St. Stephen, New Brunswick to issue a debenture to fund a railway connecting to the United States was within provincial jurisdiction as a local tax matter, or whether it intruded on federal jurisdiction over inter-provincial and international railways.

<i>Nadan v R</i> 1926 Judicial Committee of the Privy Council ruling

Nadan v R is a key ruling of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in determining the competence of the Parliament of Canada with respect to the restrictions laid out in the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865, and whether it possessed extraterritorial jurisdiction.

<i>Attorney General for Quebec v. Queen Insurance Company</i> Canadian constitutional law case – 1878

Attorney General for Quebec v. Queen Insurance Company is a Canadian constitutional law decision dealing with the taxation and licensing powers of the provinces under the federal-provincial division of powers.

<i>Madden v Nelson and Fort Sheppard Railway Co.</i> Canadian constitutional law - federal railways

Madden v Nelson and Fort Sheppard Railway Co. is a Canadian constitutional law decision, dealing with the application of provincial laws to federally regulated railways. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, at that time the highest appellate body in the British Empire, held that the provinces could not impose higher safety standards on federally regulated railways than were set out in federal law.

<i>Bourgoin v La Compagnie du Chemin de Fer de Montréal, Ottawa & Occidental, and Ross</i> Canadian constitutional law case – 1880

Bourgoin v La Compagnie du Chemin de Fer de Montréal, Ottawa & Occidental, and Ross is a Canadian constitutional law case decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, at that time the highest court of appeal for the British Empire. Although the case initially dealt with the power of arbitrators under the federal Railway Act, the underlying constitutional issue was the relationship between federal and provincial regulation of a railway in Quebec. The Judicial Committee ruled that the province could not unilaterally take over ownership and regulation of a federally regulated railway.

References

  1. ↑ An Act respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway, SC 1881, c. 1.
  2. ↑ Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v Notre Dame de Bonsecours, [1899] AC 367 (PC) at p. 372, [1899] UKPC 22, pp. 2-3 (UKPC).
  3. ↑ Constitution Act, 1867, 30 & 31 Victoria, c. 3. (U.K.).
  4. ↑ Municipal Code, SQ 1870, c. 68.
  5. ↑ Cie de Chemin de Fer Canadien du Pacifique v Notre-Dame-de-Bonsecours (Paroisse), 1897 CarswellQue 80, 7 Que. QB 121, para. 8.
  6. ↑ Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v Notre Dame de Bonsecours, p. 372 (AC), p. 3 (UKPC).
  7. ↑ Cie de Chemin de Fer Canadien du Pacifique v Notre-Dame-de-Bonsecours (Paroisse), 1897 CarswellQue 80, 7 Que. QB 121, paras. 14-15.
  8. ↑ Cie de Chemin de Fer Canadien du Pacifique v Notre-Dame-de-Bonsecours (Paroisse), 1897 CarswellQue 80, 7 Que. QB 121, paras. 2-4.
  9. ↑ Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v Notre Dame de Bonsecours, p. 372 (AC), pp. 3-4 (UKPC).
  10. ↑ Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v Notre Dame de Bonsecours, p. 372 (AC), p. 3 (UKPC).
  11. ↑ Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v Notre Dame de Bonsecours, p. 373 (AC), p. 4 (UKPC).
  12. ↑ Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v Notre Dame de Bonsecours, p. 373 (AC), p. 5 (UKPC).
  13. ↑ Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v Notre Dame de Bonsecours, p. 374 (AC), p. 5 (UKPC).
  14. ↑ Construction Montcalm Inc. v. Min. Wage Com., [1979] 1 SCR 754: provincial labour laws apply to construction company contracted to build a runway for an airport under federal regulation.
  15. ↑ Ontario v. Canadian Pacific Ltd., [1995] 2 SCR 1028.
  16. ↑ Keri Sculland, "CP Rail received $31,500 penalty for effluent discharge in Golden" Golden Star, June 6, 2019.
  17. ↑ Reference re Environmental Management Act (British Columbia), 2019 BCCA 181 (CanLII), paras. 66, 67.
  18. ↑ Jason Proctor, "B.C. can't impose environmental laws that could kill Trans Mountain pipeline, court rules", CBC, May 24, 2019.
  19. ↑ Reference re Environmental Management Act, 2020 SCC 1.
  20. ↑ Richard A. Olmsted, Q.C. (ed.), Decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council relating to the British North America Act, 1867 and the Canadian Constitution, 1867-1954, vol. I, p. 436 (Ottawa: Queen's Printer and Controller of Stationery, 1954).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.