le devait pour reussir sur son action aussi bien que sur sT-PIERRE 1'appel devant cette Cour, que suivant la pr6pondirance de la preuve, c'est Labb6, le conducteur du carnion, qui con- Fauteux J. duisait A sa gauche au temps ofi se produisit la collision. Je renverrais 'appel avec d6pens.
CALGARY POWER LTD. AND L. C.
APPELLANTS; *Nov. 11,12
HALMRAST (Defendants) .....
Dec.18
AND
CLARENCE COPITHORNE (Plaintiff) ... RESPONDENT. ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ALBERTA, APPELLATE DIVISION
Expropriation-Minister of the Crown-Minister empowered by statute to grant power of expropriation to public utility-Whether administrative or judicial decision-Whether obliged to grant hearing and act judicially-Whether right-of-way for power lines interest in land- The Water Resources Act, R.&A. 194, c. 65.
The defendant company, a licensee under The Water Resources Act, obtained the authorization of the Minister for the expropriation of a right-of-way on the plaintiff's property. The Minister's order was duly filed in the land titles office. The plaintiff received no notice of any of these proceedings, nor was he given any opportunity to be heard by the Minister. The plaintiffs action for a permanent injunction and for damages was dismissed by the trial judge. This judgment was reversed by the Court of Appeal on the ground that the Minister had failed to act judicially.
Held: The appeal should be allowed and the action dismissed.
In determining whether or not a body or an individual is exercising judicial or quasi-judicial duties, it is necessary to examine the defined scope of its functions and then to determine whether or not it imposes a duty to act judicially. Under the statute, there is no requirement to give notice or to hold an inquiry in relation to the expropriation itself, although there are specific provisions in relation to the com- Locke, Cartwright, Fauteux, Martland and Judson JJ.