Madden v Nelson and Fort Sheppard Railway Co.

Last updated

Madden v Nelson and Fort Sheppard Railway Co.
NelsonAndFortSheppardRailway.png
Map of the Nelson and Fort Sheppart Railway (in red)
Court Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
Full case nameMadden and another and Attorney General for British Columbia v Nelson and Fort Sheppard Railway Company
DecidedJuly 19, 1899
Citation(s)[1899] AC 626, [1899] UKPC 47
Case history
Appealed fromSupreme Court of British Columbia (Full Court)
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Earl of Halsbury, LC
Lord Watson
Lord Hobhouse
Lord Macnaghten
Sir Edward Fry
Sir Henry Strong, CJC
Case opinions
Decision byEarl of Halsbury, LC
Keywords
Canadian federalism

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.

Contents

Facts

The Nelson and Fort Sheppard Railway was a railway in southern British Columbia. It ran from the town of Nelson, British Columbia to the town of Fort Shepherd on the Canadian-US border at Waneta. The railway was originally incorporated under provincial law in 1891, but in 1893 it was transferred to federal jurisdiction, as a "work for the general advantage of Canada". [1] [2]

In 1891, the British Columbia legislature enacted the Cattle Protection Act, 1891. That Act provided that if a railway failed to erect fencing along its rail-line and a farm animal was injured by the operation of the railway, the railway was civilly liable in damages to the owner of the animal. [3]

This case arose when two horses owned by Madden were struck by a train operated by the Nelson and Fort Sheppard Railway. One was killed in the collision and the other had to be put down. Madden sued the railway for the value of the two horses.

Decisions of the British Columbia courts

Madden brought his action in the local County Court, relying on the provincial statute. That court, sitting with judge and jury, found the railway was liable and awarded damages.

The railway then appealed to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Counsel for the railway was Lyman Duff, who went on to become the Chief Justice of Canada, and an expert in the division of powers between the federal and provincial governments. Duff argued that the provincial requirement to erect fences conflicted with the safety regulations set out in the federal railway legislation. The province could not add to the safety regulations set out in federal law.

In a unanimous decision, the British Columbia Supreme Court agreed with Duff's argument. They overturned the County Court decision and set aside the damages award. [1]

Decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council

At that time, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was the highest appellate body for the British Empire. Litigants could appeal directly to the Judicial Committee, bypassing the Supreme Court of Canada. [4] Madden appealed the decision of the British Columbia Supreme Court to the Judicial Committee, sitting in London. The Attorney General for British Columbia intervened in the appeal in support of the legislation.

In a short decision given by the Lord Chancellor, the Earl of Halsbury, the Judicial Committee dismissed Madden's appeal. The Lord Chancellor held that it was no answer to say that the federal statute was silent on the issue of protective fences. The jurisdiction to regulate the railway lay with the federal government, and the provincial government could not pass legislation that it thought the federal government should have enacted, as was set out in the preamble to the Cattle Protection Act. He concluded that the Act was not within provincial jurisdiction and was "manifestly ultra vires". [5]

The Lord Chancellor also referred to the Judicial Committee's recent decision, Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v Notre Dame de Bonsecours , decided in March, 1899, four months before Madden. [6] That case had held that a provincial law requiring property owners to keep their property in good condition did apply to a federally regulated railway, because the law did not purport to require the railway to change its physical structure. The Lord Chancellor distinguished the Madden case from Notre Dame de Bonsecours, saying: "... in this case there is the actual provision that there shall be a liability on the railway company unless they create such and such works upon their roadway. This is manifestly and clearly beyond the jurisdiction of the provincial legislature."

Significance of the decision

Subsequent decisions

The Supreme Court of Canada continues to cite the Madden case with approval, for the proposition that provincial laws cannot regulate the specifically federal nature of federally regulated works and undertakings. [7] The case has acquired particular significance in environmental law cases, along with the related case of Notre Dame de Bonsecours. Taken together, the two cases help to set out the boundary for provincial jurisdiction over federally-regulated works and undertakings.

In 2019, the British Columbia Court of Appeal cited Madden and Notre Dame de Bonsecours in its decision holding that the province could not regulate the product shipped on a federally regulated pipeline. [8] [9] On appeal, the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal, "...for the unanimous reasons of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia." [10]

Department of Justice collection of cases

In 1949, the Parliament of Canada abolished appeals to the Judicial Committee. The federal Department of Justice then published a three-volume collection of significant constitutional decisions of the Judicial Committee. The Madden case was included in that collection. [11]

Related Research Articles

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

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Law of Canada</span>

The legal system of Canada is pluralist: its foundations lie in the English common law system, the French civil law system, and Indigenous law systems developed by the various Indigenous Nations.

In common law systems, a superior court is a court of general jurisdiction over civil and criminal legal cases. A superior court is "superior" in relation to a court with limited jurisdiction, which is restricted to civil cases involving monetary amounts with a specific limit, or criminal cases involving offenses of a less serious nature. A superior court may hear appeals from lower courts. For courts of general jurisdiction in civil law system, see ordinary court.

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.

The Nelson and Fort Sheppard Railway (N&FS) is a historic railway that operated in the West Kootenay region of southern British Columbia. The railway's name derived from a misspelling of Fort Shepherd, a former Hudson's Bay Company fort, on the west bank of the Columbia River immediately north of the border.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of British Columbia</span> Superior trial court of British Columbia, Canada

The Supreme Court of British Columbia is the superior trial court for the province of British Columbia, Canada. The Court hears civil and criminal law cases as well as appeals from the Provincial Court of British Columbia. There are 90 judicial positions on the Court in addition to supernumerary judges, making for a grand total of 108 judges. There are also 13 Supreme Court masters who hear and dispose of a wide variety of applications in chambers.

<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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Court of Appeal of Newfoundland and Labrador</span>

The Court of Appeal of Newfoundland and Labrador is at the top of the hierarchy of courts for the Canadian province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The Court of Appeal derives its powers and jurisdiction from the Court of Appeal Act.

<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.

Union Colliery Co of British Columbia v Bryden is a Canadian constitutional decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council where the exclusivity principle in Canadian federalism and pith and substance analysis was first articulated.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme court</span> Highest court in a jurisdiction

In most legal jurisdictions, a supreme court, also known as a court of last resort, apex court, and highcourt of appeal, is the highest court within the hierarchy of courts. Broadly speaking, the decisions of a supreme court are not subject to further review by any other court. Supreme courts typically function primarily as appellate courts, hearing appeals from decisions of lower trial courts, or from intermediate-level appellate courts.

<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>Paul v British Columbia (Forest Appeals Commission)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Paul v British Columbia (Forest Appeals Commission), 2003 SCC 55, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision in administrative law and aboriginal law. The case stands for the proposition that a provincial administrative actor granted the power to determine questions of law may adjudicate matters within federal legislative competence, including s. 35 aboriginal rights matters.

<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>Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v Notre Dame de Bonsecours</i> Canadian constitutional law case - JCPC

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. 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.

<i>Valin v Langlois</i> Canadian constitutional law decision – 1879

Valin v Langlois is a Canadian constitutional law decision from the Supreme Court of Canada, concerning the jurisdiction of the federal Parliament over federal elections, as well as the constitutional jurisdiction of the provincial superior courts. The Court held that the Parliament of Canada has sole jurisdiction to enact laws regulating federal elections, including provisions for controverted elections. The Court also held that the provincial superior courts have general jurisdiction over questions of federal and provincial law, and that Parliament could give provincial courts jurisdiction to apply federal laws.

<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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Section 101 of the Constitution Act, 1867</span> Provision of the Constitution of Canada

Section 101 of the Constitution Act, 1867 is a provision of the Constitution of Canada giving the federal Parliament the power to create the Supreme Court of Canada and the federal courts. Although Parliament created the Supreme Court by an ordinary federal statute in 1875, the Court is partially entrenched by the amending formula set out in the Constitution Act, 1982. The composition of the Court can only be changed by a unanimous constitutional amendment, passed by the two houses of Parliament, and all of the provincial legislative assemblies.

References

  1. 1 2 Madden v. Nelson & Fort Sheppard Railway, 1897 CarswellBC 74, 5 BCR 541 (BC SC (FullCt).
  2. An Act respecting the Nelson and Fort Sheppard Railway Company, SC 1893, c. 57, s. 1.
  3. Cattle Protection Act, 1891, SBC 1891, c. 1, s. 1.
  4. James G. Snell and Frederick Vaughan, The Supreme Court of Canada: History of the Institution (Toronto: Osgoode Society, 1985), p. 42.
  5. Madden v Nelson and Fort Sheppard Railway, [1899] AC 626, [1899] UKPC 47, 1899 CarswellBC 97.
  6. Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Notre Dame de Bonsecours, [1899] AC 367, [1899] UKPC 22.
  7. Construction Montcalm Inc. v. Min. Wage Com., [1979] 1 SCR 754.
  8. Reference re Environmental Management Act (British Columbia), 2019 BCCA 181 (CanLII).
  9. Jason Proctor, "B.C. can't impose environmental laws that could kill Trans Mountain pipeline, court rules", CBC, May 24, 2019.
  10. Reference re Environmental Management Act, 2020 SCC 1.
  11. 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. 451 (Ottawa: Queen's Printer and Controller of Stationery, 1954).