MacMillan Bloedell (Alberni) Ltd. et al. v. British Columbia Hydro & Power Authority et al.

[1975] 1 SCR 263 Court SCC Decision date 1973-10-19 English

PartiesMacMillan Bloedell (Alberni) Limited and MacMillan Bloedell Industries Limited (Plaintiffs) Appellants·British Columbia Hydro & Power Authority, Basil Van Horne and Alex Brayden (Defendants) Respondents·Windsor Construction (1962) Ltd. and Roy David Adams (Defendants) Respondents

Counsel (8)

J.J. Robinette, Q.C., and D. Shaw, for the plaintiffs, appellants.
J.J. Fitzpatrick, Q.C., A. McEachern and R.B. Harvey, for the defendants, respondents and cross-appellants British Columbia Hydro and Van Horne.
H.J. Grey, Q.C., and R. Weddigen, for the defendant, respondent and cross-appellant Brayden.
J.W. Horn, for the defendant, respondent and cross-appellant Adams.
Solicitors for the appellants: Davis & Co., Vancouver.
Solicitors for the respondent Alex Brayden: Harper, Grey, Easton & Co., Vancouver.
Solicitors for respondents British Columbia Hydro & Power Authority and Basil Van Home: Russell & DuMoulin, Vancouver.
Solicitors for respondent Windsor Construction Co.: Macdonald, Russell & Kowarsky, Vancouver.

Judges Fauteux, Joseph Honoré Gérald; Abbott, Douglas Charles; Martland, Ronald; Judson, Wilfred; Ritchie, Roland Almon; Spence, Wishart Flett; Pigeon, Louis-Philippe; Laskin, Bora; Dickson, Robert George Brian

Delivered by Judgment of the Court

On appeal from British Columbia

Subjects Torts

Judgment of the Court

The judgment of the Court was delivered by

THE CHIEF JUSTICE (orally)—The issues in this appeal, the cross-appeal and on the motions to vary, raise, in the main, questions of fact; i.e., whether or not the various respondents were liable, by reason of their negligence to the appellant, their respective responsibilities, as among themselves, to contribute toward the loss, and the question as to whether the appellant took all reasonable steps to mitigate its loss. They have all been fully argued. We are all of the opinion that there was ample evidence to support the findings of the learned trial judge, and we agree with his reasons and conclusions on these various points.

The matter of the appellant’s claim for damages for snag felling and reforestation costs, raises a question of law. We are in agreement with the decision of the learned trial judge on this point.

In the result, the appellant’s appeal and the cross-appeal of the respondent Adams are allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside and the judgment of the trial judge is restored. The appellant is entitled to its costs in this Court and in the Court of Appeal against the respondents British Columbia Hydro & Power Authority, Basil Van Horne and Alex Brayden. The respondent Adams is entitled, as against those respondents, to his costs in this Court, and in the Court of Appeal. The motions of the respondents British Columbia Hydro & Power Authority, Basil Van Horne and Alex Brayden to vary the judgment of the Court of Appeal are dismissed, with costs payable to the appellant.

Judgment accordingly.

Solicitors for the appellants: Davis & Co., Vancouver.

Solicitors for the respondent Alex Brayden: Harper, Grey, Easton & Co., Vancouver.

Solicitors for respondents British Columbia Hydro & Power Authority and Basil Van Home: Russell & DuMoulin, Vancouver.

[Page 265]

Solicitors for respondent Windsor Construction Co.: Macdonald, Russell & Kowarsky, Vancouver.

Footnotes

[1] [1973] 1 W.W.R. 22.