R. v. Hendricks

Le Juge en Chef

239' the appellant's petition of right. Appeal allowed,

.

relevant facts are set out in the reasons of my brothers Ritchie and

Spence which I have had the advantage of reading.

I agree with the judgment of my brother Spence and wish to add only a few words.

In my opinion, there was no adequate reason or excuse for the failure on the part of the employees of the respondent to replace the warning sign reading "Danger-Falls Ahead", this failure was negligent and was an effective cause of the disaster that occurred. I base this conclusion on the reasons given by my brother

Spence and do not find it necessary to add anything to what he has said.

Neither my brother Ritchie nor the learned trial Judge has found it necessary to decide whether there was negligence imputable to the respondent as in their view, even if there was, the negligence of the appellant and his late wife was the sole proximate cause of the accident.

I cannot accept this view. This appears to me to be a case in which the negligence for which the respondent is responsible was an effective cause of the appellant and his late wife embarking on a dangerous course which they would not otherwise have entered. I agree that they were negligent in failing to realize and appreciate the existence of the danger a few moments sooner than they did; but this does not, in my opinion, warrant the placing of the whole blame upon them. All the conduct with which they are reproached should be viewed in the light of the fact that they were acting in a situation of imminent danger into which the negligence imputed to the respondent had brought them.

I would dispose of the appeal as proposed by my brother Spence.

r6clamation du demandeur soumise par voie de p6tition de droit. Appel accueilli, les Juges Abbott et Ritchie 6tant dissidents.

D'A. C. H. McCafgrey et J. F. O'Sullivan, pour le demandeur, appelant.

Derek H. Aylen et Robert W. Law, pour la d6fenderesse, intimbe.

CHEF-Mes colligues les Juges Ritchie et Spence ont r6sum6 les faits pertinents dans leurs motifs de jugement, motifs que j'ai eu le privilige de lire.

Je suis d'accord avec mon colligue le Juge Spence et d6sire cependant ajouter quelques mots. A mon avis, les employ6s de l'intim6e n'avaient aucun motif ou excuse 16gitime de ne pas remplacer les panneaux de signalisation portant les mots <<Danger-Falls Ahead ; cette omission 6tait une n6gligence et elle a 6t6 la cause efficiente du d6sastre qui est survenu. Ma conclusion A ce sujet est fond6e sur les motifs donn6s par mon coll~gue le Juge Spence, auxquels je ne vois rien a ajouter.

Ni mon collgue le Juge Ritchie ni le savant Juge de premibre instance n'ont cru n6cessaire de d6cider s'il y avait eu une n6gligence imputable A I'intim6e, vu qu'd leur avis, mime s'il en 6tait ainsi, celle de 1'appelant et de son 6pouse d6c6d6e 6tait la seule cause immediate de l'accident. Je ne puis accepter cette manibre de voir. I me parait qu'ici la n6gligence dont I'intimbe est responsable a contribu6 effectivement A amener I'appelant et son 6pouse dans une voie p6rilleuse qu'ils auraient autrement 6vit6e. Je conviens qu'il y a eu n6gligence de leur part en manquant d'apercevoir et appr6cier le danger un peu plus t6t qu'ils ne l'ont fait, mais cette n6gligence ne permet pas, A mon avis, de leur imputer toute la responsabilit6. -II faut tenir compte, dans l'apprdciation du comportement qu'on leur reproche, du fait qu'ils se trouvaient en pr6sence d'un danger imminent, oil la n6gligence imputable A I'intim6e les avait conduits.

Je disposerais du pourvoi de la fagon que le propose mon colligue le Juge Spence.

239, Ritchie J.

11970] S.C.R.

J. (dissenting)-This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Cattanach of the

Exchequer Court of Canada whereby he dismissed the suppliant's claims made by Petition of Right purporting to be brought by virtue of the provisions of the Crown Liability Act,

1952-53 (Can.), c. 30 and of The Trustee Act of Manitoba, R.S.M. 1954, c. 273 and The Fatal

Accidents Act of that Province, R.S.M. 1954, c. 84.

The Petition was filed by Egan Hendricks as the administrator of the estate of his late wife,

Irene May

Hendricks, claiming under The

Trustee Act for his wife's funeral expenses, the loss of his boat and general damages, and under

The Fatal Accidents Act on behalf of himself and his daughter for general damages occasioned by the death of his wife as the result of an accident which occurred when Mr. Hendricks' boat, then being operated by his wife, was swept over a waterfall adjacent to St. Andrew's Lock at Lockport in the Province of Manitoba on

June 19, 1966.

It is not denied that the Lockport Dam and the St. Andrew's Lock are public works and that the Department of Public Works is responsible for their management, maintenance and control, and in this regard a Privy Council Order was issued on the 29th of December, 1949 (P.C.

6514) entitled "Regulations for the use and

Operation of St. Andrew's Lock, Red River,

Man." In cross-examination Hendricks finally admitted that he was familiar with this Order which provides, inter alia:

2. (g) 'season of navigation' means the period between the opening and closing of the lock for traffic; ...

17.

Le jugement des Juges Abbott et Ritchie fut rendu par

(dissident)-Le pourvoi est A l'encontre d'un jugement de M. Le Juge Cattanach de la Cour de 1' chiquier du Canada par lequel ce dernier rejette la reclamation du p6titionnaire soumise par voie de pitition de droit, fond6e pr6tendument, sur les dispositions de la Loi sur la responsabilitg de la Couronne, 1952-1953 (Can.), c. 30, la loi dite The Trustee Act du Manitoba, S.R.M. 1954, c. 273 et la loi dite The Fatal Accidents Act de cette meme province, S.R.M. 1954, c. 84.

Dans sa p6tition, qu'il pr6sente en qualit6 d'administrateur de la succession de feu sa femme, Irene May Hendricks, Egan Hendricks r6clame aux titres suivants: en vertu de The Trustee Act, le montant des frais fundraires de sa femme, la perte de son bateau et des dommages g6n6raux; pour lui-mame et pour sa fille, en vertu de The Fatal Accidents Act, des dommages g6n6raux r6sultant du d6chs de sa femme par suite d'un accident ott le bateau de M. Hendricks, alors conduit par sa femme, a saut6 la chute A proximit6 de l'6cluse St. Andrew's & Lockport, province du Manitoba, le 19 juin 1966.

On ne nie pas que le barrage de Lockport et l'6cluse St. Andrews sont des ouvrages publics dont le minist~re des Travaux publics a l'administration, la charge et la gestion. On trouve h ce sujet un arrit6 du Conseil priv6, du 29 d6cembre 1949

(C.P. 6514), intitul6: R~glements pour l'utilisation et l'exploitation de l'6cluse St. Andrews, rivibre Rouge, Manitoba. En contreinterrogatoire M. Hendricks a finalement admis qu'il connaissait bien cet arr~t6 qui d6cr~te, notamment:

2. (g)

de navigations signifie la p6riode comprise entre l'ouverture et la fermeture de l'6cluse A la circulation.

17.

Ritchie I.

Le Juge Ritchie such vessel in sufficient time to avoid a collision with the lock or its gates, or with the bridge or other works.

The italics are my own.

I think it must be accepted that the fixed weir adjacent to the lock to which reference will hereinafter be made, comes within the meaning of

"other works" as employed in the section last quoted, and that when Mr. Hendricks' boat was swept over the waterfall created by this weir, it must be taken to have come into collision with it.

I think also that the evidence makes it clear that although they were familiar with the regulations last referred to, the Hendricks acted in direct contravention of them; although they knew that the lock was dry they failed to recognize that the season of navigation had not opened and they made no effort to stop the speed of their boat in sufficient time to avoid colliding with the weir.

Mr. Hendricks and his wife were enthusiastic members of the Redboyne Boating Club, an organization composed of persons who enjoyed boating on the Red River and which supplied its members, including the Hendricks, with full information as to safe navigation and the condition of that River, together with instructions as to safe operation of small boats. The Hendricks were familiar with the River, including the dam at Lockport and the five-foot drop in the River adjacent thereto which created the waterfall where the accident occurred.

Hendricks and his wife had owned small boats for seven years and in the autumn of 1965

Hendricks had purchased a 19-foot fibre glass boat having a 7-foot beam and powered by a

90 horsepower outboard motor, in which he and his wife and a friend by the name of John

Atkinson embarked at the Redboyne Boating

Club dock on June 19, 1966, taking their lunch and some beer with them with the object of enjoying a cruise on the River as far as Selkirk, which was north of the Lockport Dam. Mr.

Hendricks navigated the boat until they stopped for lunch, but when they started again Mrs.

Hendricks took over the controls and Hendricks et il doit r6duire la vitesse de son navire assez t6t pour 6viter toute collision avec l'6cluse ou ses portes ou avec le pont ou les autres ouvrages.

Les italiques sont de moi.

Je crois qu'il faut tenir que la digue dormante qui se trouve pras de I'6cluse et dont il sera question plus loin tombe dans la cat6gorie d6sign6e par l'expression

<autres ouvrages> employee dans l'article que je viens de citer, et qu'il faut consid6rer que le bateau d'Hendricks est venu en collision avec la digue, en sautant la chute qu'elle produit. Je crois aussi que la preuve montre clairement que bien que les Hendricks aient connu les rbglements qui viennent d'6tre cit6s, ils ne les ont pas du tout observ6s. Quoiqu'ils aient su que 1'6cluse 6tait h sec, ils n'ont pas compris que la saison de navigation n'6tait pas encore ouverte et ils n'ont pas cherch6 A r6duire la vitesse de leur embarcation assez t6t pour 6viter d'entrer en collision avec la digue. M. Hendricks et sa femme 6taient des fervents du club nautique Redboyne. Cette association 6tait form6e de personnes qui s'adonnaient A la navigation de plaisance sur la rivirre Rouge et elle donnait A ses membres, dont les Hendricks, tous les renseignements au sujet de la s6curit6 sur l'eau et des conditions de navigation sur la rivibre Rouge de m8me que des conseils sur la s6curit6 dans le maniement des petites embarcations. La rivibre Rouge 6tait bien connue des Hendricks, de m8me que le barrage de Lockport et la d6nivellation de cinq pieds qu'il produisait dans la rivibre et qui cr6ait la chute oi I'accident est survenu.

M. et Mme Hendricks avaient une petite embarcation depuis environ sept ans. A l'automne 1965, ils s'6taient achet6 un bateau en fibre de verre, de 19 pieds de longueur et de sept pieds de bau, 6quip6 d'un moteur hors-bord de 90 chevaux-vapeur.

C'est dans ce bateau qu'en compagnie d'un ami nomm6 John Atkinson, ils sont partis du quai du club nautique Redboyne le 19 juin 1966, emportant leur repas et de la bibre, avec l'intention de se promener sur la riviere jusqu'd Selkirk, au nord du barrage de Lockport. M. Hendricks a conduit le bateau jusqu'au moment oii ils se sont arrit6s pour d6jeuner. C'est Mme Hendricks qui a pris les Ritchie J.[17]SCR and his friend Atkinson seated themselves in the rear of the boat facing the stern.

The dam, so called, at Lockport, consists of a bridge which rests upon five substantial concrete pillars between each of which there is a metal frame with wooden slats affixed to it; the wooden slats operate more or less on the principle of a venetian blind and when the frame is lowered so as to rest upon the top of a concrete weir which is designed to receive it and when the wooden slats are closed, the flow of the River is interrupted and the dam becomes effective so as to raise the water level to allow boats to pass over the Lister Rapids and permit navigation between Lockport and Winnipeg which is a distance of approximately fifteen miles to the south. Whether the dam is lowered or not, the fixed weir has the effect by itself of causing a small waterfall of about five feet with which both the Hendricks were familiar.

When the flow of the Red River at Redwood

Bridge in the City of Winnipeg is estimated at

10,300 cubic feet per second, which usually occurs sometime in the early part of June, the dam curtain is lowered at Lockport, the wooden slats are closed and the lock adjacent to and directly to the west of the dam is put in operation so that river traffic can get past the dam;

when this occurs the River is declared open for navigation, but in the year 1966 this did not occur until the 20th of June, and on the day of the accident the metal frames were still in the raised position and the dam had no effect on the rate of flow of the River. At the same time the ship canal leading to the lock was dry and the lock was obviously not in operation.

It is to be remembered that Mr. and Mrs.

Hendricks must both be taken to have been aware of the rules of the River and as they approached the dam and found the curtain to be raised and the lock to be dry, they ought to have known that the River was not open to navigation.

Notwithstanding the fact that the Hendricks had been through the lock on many occasions and had seen the falls at least six times, they appear to have concluded that the water in the

River had risen to an extent which would make commandes quand ils sont repartis. M. Hendricks et son ami M. Atkinson se sont assis a I'arribre du bateau, tourn6s vers la poupe. A Lockport, le barrage, ainsi qu'on 1'appelle, se compose d'un pont soutenu par cinq gros piliers de b6ton entre chacun desquels il y a une vanne m6tallique munie d'un rideau de bois. Ce rideau fonctionne A peu pres comme un store japonais. Quand la vanne est abaiss6e de fagon A s'appuyer sur le sommet de la digue en b6ton qui est construite pour la recevoir, et que le rideau de bois est ferm6, I'eau de la rivibre se trouve retenue et le barrage fait monter le niveau de l'eau de fagon h permettre aux embarcations de franchir les rapides Lister et il rend la rivibre navigable entre Lockport et Winnipeg, qui se trouve A environ 15 milles au sud. M8me si les vannes ne sont pas abaiss6es, la digue dormante cr6e par elle-mbme une petite chute d'environ cinq pieds de hauteur ce qui 6tait connu des deux 6poux Hendricks.

Lorsqu'on estime A 10,300 pieds cubes h la seconde le d6bit de la rivibre Rouge au pont Redwood, dans la ville de Winnipeg, soit ordinairement au d6but de juin, on abaisse les vannes du barrage a Lockport et on ferme les rideaux de bois. L'6cluse situde tout pris du barrage, juste A l'ouest, commence 6 fonctionner et il devient possible de naviguer sur la rivibre audeld du barrage. La rivibre est alors d6clar6e ouverte h la navigation. En 1966, cela n'eut pas lieu avant le 20 juin. Le jour de l'accident, les vannes m6talliques 6taient encore relev6es et le barrage ne retenait aucunement le d6bit de la rivibre. De mime, le canal de 1'6cluse 6tait A sec et il 6tait 6vident que celle-ci ne fonctionnait pas. Il ne faut pas oublier que les Hendricks doivent tous deux 8tre pr6sum6s au courant des riglements de la navigation sur la rivibre et lorsqu'ils se sont approch6s du barrage, ont constat6 que les rideaux 6taient relev6s et que l'6cluse 6tait vide, ils auraient dfi savoir que la rivibre n'6tait pas encore ouverte A la navigation. Bien qu'ils aient emprunt6 l'6cluse A plusieurs reprises et aient vu la chute au moins six fois, les Hendricks semblent avoir pens6 que le niveau de la rivibre avait suffisamment mont6 pour leur permettre de passer en s6curit6 sous les rideaux Le Juge Ritchie it safe for them to go under the open curtain of the bridge without encountering the five-foot drop in the level of the River.

It is necessary here to mention the fact that the employees of the Department of Public

Works who were in charge of the management of the Lockport Dam had customarily placed a buoy a short distance to the south of the dam at a point in line with and slightly to the south of the eastern side of the ship canal which led into the lock. Normally there were affixed to this buoy two white wooden signs placed crosswise with the words "Danger Falls Ahead" painted thereon in red letters, but in the spring of the year

1966 the flood waters of the River washed over the buoy and dislodged the signs which had not been replaced on the 19th of June, 1966.

As they approached the dam, it was the intention of the Hendricks to take their boat through the lock, but as they got close it became apparent that the ship canal was impassable and that the lock was not open for use. The suppliant testified that at this point his wife turned the boat about and went back upstream from the dam about one-quarter of a mile with the intention of returning home, but Mr. Hendricks says that he then looked back down the River, saw that all the curtains of the dam were raised and observed that the danger signs were no longer placed on the buoy; it then appeared to him that the water was level on both sides of the dam and he could see no falls but did observe a number of small boats fishing and cruising on the far side of the dam, from all of which he concluded that it would be safe to pass under the bridge and directed his wife to do so, whereupon Mrs. Hendricks put the boat about and headed for the fourth span of the bridge, at a speed which Hendricks estimated to be between ten and twelve miles per hour. It was not until the boat was about fifty feet from the dam that the presence of the drop in the water level became clearly visible and the fall of water very audible; at this point Mrs.

Hendricks turned the boat broadside to the dam and the flow of the River. The boat was then in a dangerous position and at the trial Hendricks testified that he shouted to his wife to "cut it"

although he had previously given a statement to the effect that: "The wife tried to make a turn ouverts du pont sans rencontrer la d6nivellation de cinq pieds.

Il faut dire ici que les pr6pos6s du ministbre des Travaux publics, responsables de 1'administration du barrage de Lockport, avaient l'habitude de mettre une boude a une faible distance au sud du barrage, soit un peu au sud du prolongement du c6t6 est du canal qui conduit h I'6cluse. Il y avait normalement deux 6criteaux blancs en bois, fix6s h la bou6e, A angle droit l'un par rapport a l'autre, portant l'inscription suivante A la peinture rouge:

<Danger-Falls Ahead . Cependant au cours du printemps de 1966, la crue des eaux a submerg6 la bou6e et emport6 les 6criteaux. Ils n'avaient pas encore 6t6 remplac6s le 19 juin 1966.

A I'approche du barrage, les Hendricks projetaient de passer par l'6cluse. Rendus tout prbs, ils ont bien vu que le canal de 1'6cluse 6tait impraticable et que celle-ci n'6tait pas ouverte A la navigation. D'aprbs le t6moignage du p6titionnaire, sa femme a alors fait demi-tour et remont6 le courant sur une distance d'environ un quart de mille, en s'6loignant du barrage dans l'intention de retourner A Winnipeg. M. Hendricks dit qu'il a alors regard6 en aval, vu que les rideaux du barrage 6taient tous relev6s et observ6 qu'il n'y avait plus d'6criteaux A la bou6e. II a cru alors que le niveau de l'eau 6tait le m~me des deux c6tis du barrage. II n'a pu distinguer aucune chute; par contre, il a constat6 qu'il y avait plusieurs personnes qui se promenaient et qui pichaient dans de petites embarcations de l'autre c6t6 du pont. De tout cela, il a conclu qu'il n'y avait pas de danger a passer sous le pont et il a dit A sa femme de le faire. Lh-dessus, Mme Hendricks a chang6 de direction et s'est dirigee vers la quatribme travie du pont, A une vitesse de dix ou douze milles h l'heure, selon l'estimation de M. Hendricks. Ce n'est que lorsque le bateau a 6t6 A environ cinquante pieds du barrage que la d6nivellation est devenue clairement visible et le bruit de la chute, tris audible. Mme Hendricks a alors tourn6 le bateau en travers du courant, de c6t6 par rapport au barrage. Le bateau se trouvait done alors dans une position p6rilleuse. Au procks, M. Hendricks a t6moign6 qu'il avait crid A sa femme: <Cut it

(Arrite-le) bien qu'il ait Le luge Ritchie

Ritchie J.[17]SCR so I said put it in reverse. She put it in reverse and the motor kicked up". His companion, Mr.

Atkinson, made a statement to the same effect.

In any event, it is established that the motor became locked in a position with the propellor out of the water so that the boat was out of control, whereupon Mr. Hendricks took over from his wife and tried to get the motor down.

In the result the boat was carried broadside over the top of the dam and finally filled with water and capsized as a result of which Mrs. Hendricks was drowned.

The suppliant alleges that his wife's death was caused by the "carelessness, recklessness and negligence of servants of Her Majesty in right of

Canada" and pleads that such servants were negligent in failing to close the dam before

June 19, 1966; in causing a dangerous drop in water level; in failing to warn the public of the existence of this danger by adequate visible or audible warning signs; by failing to replace the warning signs which had been floated on the buoy and lost in the flood; by failing to take adequate precautions to avoid damage to pleasure boat users; by failing to have emergency assistance available; and, lastly, by creating a trap on the Red River without any warning of the existence thereof to boat users.

By way of defence, the Crown submits that the accident was caused solely by the negligence or alternatively, the contributory or ultimate and effective negligence of the suppliant and his deceased wife.

It appears to me that if there was any negligence on the respondent's part it was in failing to replace the warning signs on the buoy so as to alert persons unfamiliar with that portion of the River to the fact that there were "Falls

Ahead". This created a static situation which was potentially dangerous to those who did not know about the dam and the falls, but these were conditions with which both the suppliant and his wife were thoroughly familiar and the danger was not only one which they had every dit dans une d6claration antirieure: [TRADUCTION] <<Ma femme a essay6 de faire demi-tour et je lui ai dit de faire marche arribre. Elle l'a fait mais le moteur est sorti de 1'eau.> Son compagnon, M. Atkinson, a fait une d6claration dans le m~me sens. Quoi qu'il en soit, il est 6tabli que le moteur s'est trouv6 verrouill6 l'h6lice hors de l'eau, de sorte que l'on ne pouvait plus manceuvrer le bateau. Voyant cela, M. Hendricks a pris les commandes A la place de sa femme et il a tent6 d'abaisser le moteur. Le courant a entraim le bateau par-dessus le barrage, il s'est empli d'eau et a chavir6. En consequence, Hendricks s'est noy6e.

Le p6titionnaire alligue que le d6chs de sa femme r6sulte de l'incurie, l'imprudence et la n6gligence des pr6pos6s de Sa Majest6 du chef du Canada; il pr6tend que ces pr6pos6s ont fait preuve de n6gligence en ne fermant pas les vannes avant le 19 juin 1966, en criant une dangereuse d6nivellation, en n'avisant pas le public de cc danger au moyen de signaux suffisants, sonores ou visuels, en ne remplagant pas les 6criteaux d'avertissement qui avaient 6t6 install6s sur la bou6e et emport6s par la crue, en ne prenant pas les pr6cautions n6cessaires pour 6viter tout dommage A ceux qui se servent d'embarcations de plaisance, en n'ayant pas de secours d'urgence en cas de besoin et enfin en criant un pidge sur la rivinre Rouge sans en aviser d'aucune fagon ceux qui s'y prombnent en bateau de plaisance.

En d6fense, la Couronne alligue que l'accident r6sulte de la seule n6gligence du p6titionnaire et de feu son 6pouse ou, subsidiairement, que leur n6gligence commune est la cause prochaine et efficiente de l'accident.

II me parait que s'il y a eu n6gligence de la part de l'intim6e, c'est de ne pas avoir remplac6 les 6criteaux de signalisation sur la bou6e, de fagon A prdvenir ceux qui ne connaissent pas cette partie de la rivibre du fait qu'il y avait une chute plus loin. Cette omission cr6ait un 6tat de fait qui pr6sentait un danger possible pour ceux qui ignoraient l'existence du barrage et de la chute. Mais les Hendricks 6taient parfaitement au courant de I'existence de la chute et du barrage et il s'agissait d'un p6ril qui pouvait non f(19701 S.C.R. LeueRihe24 opportunity to avoid, but one to which they deliberately exposed themselves.

Although

Mr. Hendricks testified that he thought that the River had levelled out so as to make it safe for him to pass under the bridge, I do not think that this was a reasonable conclusion for any man to make who had seen the waterfalls six times before and passed through the lock on more than one occasion and whose observation of the condition of the ship canal and lock on the day of the accident should have alerted him to the fact that the River was not yet open for navigation at that point. In my opinion, the failure of both Mr. and Mrs. Hendricks to take any precautions for their own safety was the determining factor in producing the unhappy result which occurred. The absence of the warning signs on the buoy was not of itself a cause of the accident which was solely occasioned by the acts of the suppliant and his unfrtinate wife. The negligent conduct of the suppliant and his wife was severable from and subsequent to any negligence which might be attributed to the respondent, and in navigating their pleasure boat as that did, it appears to me that they ought to have anticipated the disaster which ensued. This is not a case to which the provisions of the

Tortfeasors and Contributory Negligence Act,

R.S.M. 1954, c. 266, can have any application.

For all these reasons I would dismiss this appeal with costs.

SPENCE J.-This is an appeal from the judgment of Cattanach J. in the Exchequer Court of

Canada pronounced on May 31, 1968, whereby that learned trial judge dismissed the petition of right filed by the claimant.

I have had the privilege of reading the reasons of Ritchie J. but with regret I must differ from his conclusion.

In order to avoid repetition I do not outline the facts as completely as did Ritchie J. and shall only make reference thereto where it is necessary for the purpose of these reasons.

Prior to the year 1903, the Red River, subject to certain portages, was navigable from the City of Winnipeg to Lake Winnipeg. In that year, in seulement 8tre trbs facilement 6vit6, mais auquel ils se sont m~me expos6s d6lib6r6ment.

Bien que M. Hendricks ait t6moign6 qu'il a cru que le niveau de la rivibre s'6tait 6galis6 de fagon A lui permettre de passer sous le pont sans danger, je ne crois pas qu'il s'agissait d'une conclusion raisonnable de la part d'une personne qui avait d6ji vu la chute a six reprises et utilis6 le canal et I'6cluse plus d'une fois. L'6tat du canal et de I'6cluse le jour de l'accident aurait dfi lui faire comprendre que la saison de navigation n'6tait pas encore ouverte h cet endroit. A mon avis, I'omission de M. et Hendricks de veiller A leur propre s6curit6 a 6t6 le facteur d6terminant du malheur qui leur est arriv6. L'absence des 6criteaux de signalisation sur la boude n'a pas contribu6 en elle-mime h l'accident, ce dernier r6sultant uniquement des actes du p6titionnaire et de sa femme. Leur conduite ndgligente est distincte de toute n6gligence imputable A l'intimbe et elle est post6rieure. En dirigeant comme ils l'ont fait leur embarcation de plaisance, ils auraient dfi pr6voir l'accident qui est survenu. La loi dite The Tortfeasors and Contributory Negligence Act,

S.R.M. 1954, c. 266, ne peut avoir aucune application en la pr6sente affaire.

Pour tous ces motifs, je rejetterais 1'appel avec d6pens.

Le jugement des Juges Hall et Spence a 6t6 rendu par

LE SPENCE-Le pourvoi est h 1'encontre d'un jugement du Juge Cattanach de la Cour de lIchiquier du Canada, prononc6 le 31 mai 1968, par lequel le savant Juge de premibre instance a rejet6 la p6tition de droit du demandeur.

J'ai eu le privilege de lire les motifs du Juge Ritchie, mais A regret, je ne puis 6tre d'accord avec ses conclusions.

Pour 6viter les r6p6titions, je ne ferai pas un expos6 des faits aussi complet que celui du Juge Ritchie et ne mentionnerai que ceux qui sont pertinents aux pr6sents motifs.

Avant 1903, la rivibre Rouge 6tait navigable de la ville de Winnipeg jusqu'au lac du m~me nom, sauf quelques portages. Cette ann6e-la, Le luge Ritchie order to permit navigation over the Lister Rapids, which extend from a point some five miles upstream from the St. Andrew's Dam and Locks for a distance of eight miles, by increasing the water over the rapids the federal government installed this series of works which may briefly be described as follows:

On the base of the river there was laid a concrete weir some 37 feet in width which at places was 20 feet above the bed of the stream, then a bridge for the use of vehicular traffic which was supported by six large concrete piers was erected immediately above the weir. There were hanging from the lower side of the platform of the bridge a series of gates. These gates were so attached that they were hinged at their top end to the underside of the bridge so that they might either be retained in a position parallel to the floor of the bridge and immediately below it or dropped to a vertical position their lower ends resting in slots along the top of the weir.

The curtain which has been perhaps aptly described as a Japanese blind could be lowered so that the space between the floor of the bridge and the top of the weir was reduced. When these curtains were down the water level over the weir was raised, according to the finding made by the learned trial judge, by some fourteen feet. On the other hand, when the curtains and the gates in which they sat were raised the whole space between each of the concrete piers was opened and on the 19th of June, 1966, the day of the accident, 2.4 feet of water flowed over the top of the weir. It is, therefore, apparent that whether the gates on this dam were raised or lowered, there was beneath the water and always hidden from view a very substantial concrete barrier constituting, what Duff C.J. described in The

King v. Hochelaga Shipping & Towing Company

Ltd.', "a dangerous menace to navigation."

When the gates and curtains were lowered, the peril to navigation, of course, was obvious on even a casual observation as, in fact, there was a complete wall across the river. When those gates and curtains were raised the appearance was that shown in the third opening from the left on the photograph produced at trial as ex. 5, that is, it bore much the appearance of an ordinary bridge across a river.

afin de rendre navigables, en y 6levant le niveau de l'eau, les rapides Lister qui s'6tendent sur huit milies depuis un point situ6 A environ cinq miles en amont du barrage et des 6cluses St. Andrew, le gouvernement f6d6ral a fait construire des installations, qu'on peut d6crire sommairement de la facon suivante:

Au fond de la rivibre, on a coul6 une digue en b6ton large d'environ 37 pieds qui s'616ve jusqu'd 20 pieds au-dessus du lit de la rivibre A certains endroits. On a aussi construit un pont pour les voitures imm6diatement au-dessus du barrage, sur six gros piliers de b6ton. Le tablier du pont supporte A sa partie infbrieure une sdrie de vannes. Ces vannes sont accroch6es par le haut A charnibre sous le pont, de sorte qu'on peut soit les relever juste au-dessous du tablier du pont en position parallble A celui-ci ou les laisser tomber A la verticale, le bas reposant alors dans une rainure le long du sommet de la digue. Un rideau, qu'on a peut-6tre d6crit avec justesse comme un store japonais, peut se baisser de fagon h r6duire 1'espace libre entre le tablier du pont et le sommet de la digue. Lorsque ces rideaux sont abaiss6s, le niveau de l'eau monte jusqu'h environ quatorze pieds au-dessus de la digue, selon les conclusions du savant Juge de premiere instance. D'autre part, quand les rideaux et les vannes dans lesquelles ils se trouvent sont relev6s, tout l'espace entre les piliers est libre. Le

19 juin 1966, jour de l'accident, il passait 2.4 pieds d'eau par-dessus la digue. Il est donc clair que, les vannes du barrage relev6es on abaiss6es, il y avait sous la surface de l'eau, toujours cach6 A la vue, un obstacle consid6rable en b6ton, qui constituait ce que le Juge en chef Duff a d6crit dans l'affaire Le Roi c. Hochelaga Shipping & Towing Company Ltd.' comme <un grave danger pour la navigation>. Quand les vannes et rideaux 6taient abaiss6s, le danger pour la navigation 6tait manifeste au premier coup d'ceil puisque, en fait, le passage 6tait compl~tement ferm6 sur toute la largeur de la rivibre. Quand les vannes et rideaux 6taient relev6s, les choses avaient I'aspect de la troisibme ouverture de gauche sur la photographie produite au procks comme piece no 5, c'est-A-dire que le tout avait I'apparence d'un pont ordinaire enjambant une rivibre.

A D.L.R. To provide for navigation past this dam, the federal government had installed on the west side of the Red River a canal channel and lock.

The canal channel had been dredged and the earth from it thrown up to the east of the canal between it and the river to form an artificial island of some very considerable extent. Immediately beneath the bridge portion of the works a lock was installed. Boats coming downstream from Winnipeg passed this set of works by entering the boat channel along the west limit of the river and to the west of this artificial island, progressing down that channel to the lock and then through the lock to the uninterrupted portion of the river to the north of the set of works.

This set of works was by the provisions of the

Public Works Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 228, under the management, charge and direction of the

Minister of Public Works, and at all material times the employees of that department were servants of the Crown acting in the course of their duties as such. This admission was made for the purpose of the trial.

It was the practice in the operation of the lock and dam to raise the gates and curtains in the month of November and at that time to cease the operation of the lock. In the spring, at a date which varied according to the flow in the river, the gates were lowered and the curtains closed so that the depth of water to the south, i.e., upstream of the dam, rapidly increased. The canal channel which had been dry during the low water filled up and the lock went into operation.

In order to indicate the turn from the main channel course for boats coming downstream into the canal, the Crown servants had placed in the river, a little south of the south end of the artificial island and some distance into the stream, a buoy which was described as a 6-foot floating buoy. This buoy consisted of an anchor of 400-pound weight holding a floating platform from which protruded a circular pipe-like projection painted black.

In 1964, the canal superintendent testified, that noticing that the occupants of small boats were subjecting themselves to a very considerable hazard by operating their boats back and forth in the fore bay just above the dam, he caused

Pour permettre la navigation au-deld du barrage, le gouvernement f6d6ral a fait am6nager, du c6t6 ouest de la rivibre Rouge, un canal formant chenal et une 6cluse. Le canal a 6t6 dragu6 et la terre rejet6e A l'est du canal entre celui-ci et la rivibre de fagon A former une artificielle consid6rable. Juste en aval du pont, on a am6nag6 une 6cluse. Les bateaux venant de Winnipeg, dans le sens du courant, franchissent ces am6nagements en entrant dans le canal du c6t6 ouest de la rivibre et en suivant le canal & l'ouest de File artificielle jusqu'd I'6cluse pour rejoindre la rivibre qui continue ensuite vers le nord. Aux termes de la Loi sur les travaux publics, S.R.C. 1952, c. 228, le ministre des Travaux publics avait l'administration, la charge et la gestion de ces am6nagements et pendant toute la p6riode oix les faits pertinents se sont d6roulds, les employ6s de ce ministbre 6taient des pr6pos6s de la Couronne, agissant comme tels dans l'exercice de leurs fonctions. Cela a 6t6 reconnu pour les fins du procks.

II 6tait d'usage dans l'exploitation de l'6cluse et du barrage de relever les vannes et rideaux au cours du mois de novembre et de cesser toute activit6 h ce moment-l.

Au printemps, h une date qui variait selon le d6bit de la rivibre, on abaissait les vannes et on fermait les rideaux de sorte qu'au sud, c'est-A-dire en amont du barrage, I'eau montait rapidement. Le canal, qui 6tait vide pendant que le niveau de l'eau 6tait bas, s'emplissait et l'6cluse recommengait A fonctionner. Pour signaler aux embarcations qui descendaient le courant le d6tour A faire par le canal au lieu de suivre le chenal principal, les pr6pos6s de la Couronne avaient plac6 au milieu de la rivinre, un peu au sud de l'extr6mit6 sud de l'ile artificielle, une boude qu'on a d6crite comme une bou6e flottante de 6 pieds. Cette bou6e se composait d'une ancre de 400 livres retenant une plate-forme flottante surmont6e d'un tube peint en noir.

Le surintendant du canal a d6pos6 qu'en 1964, il avait remarqu6 que les passagers des petites embarcations prenaient de grands risques en naviguant dans l'anse juste en amont du barrage et qu'en cons6quence, il avait fait installer sur to be placed on the top of this buoy a mast and by wood screws attached to the mast two signs.

These signs were at right angles; both were about 3 feet long by a foot high and both bore the same inscription "Danger-Falls Ahead".

In the year 1966, that buoy with the signs so affixed and painted was placed in the river on the 13th of May. On such date, the lock had not yet been put into operation. The gates with their shutters had not been lowered, as the river had not yet come to flood. Through long experience it had been discovered that it was not appropriate or efficient to close those gates and shutters until the flow of water past Redwood Bridge in the City of Winnipeg, some 15 to 18 miles upstream from this St. Andrew's Lock, had decreased to 10,300 cu. ft. per second. When the river was in flood following the 13th of May, the height of the water rose so considerably that the buoy platform, being attached to its 400 pound anchor by a chain, was submerged and with the platform the buoy itself and its attached mast and signs also went under.

In all probability, it was this rush of water which detached the signs. The first sign was detached during the month of May and early in the week of the 6th of June 1966, the superintendent noted that the second sign had disappeared from the mast above the buoy. The buoy had been put in place by using a work boat some 19 feet in length, and that work boat was then returned to the lock and left inside the lock for security. Following the time when the first sign disappeared, the superintendent was unwilling to take the work boat out of the lock and venture into the stream for the purpose of replacing the first missing sign because the current at flood time was so strong that it would have endangered the lives of his staff. After he had noticed during the few days immediately following the 6th of June that the second sign was missing, it would have been possible, by the use of that work boat, to have replaced the signs, but the lowered water had caused the canal channel to dry out and the work boat was blocked in the lock so that it was not available.

In addition, it was expected by the Crown servants that the flow in the river would decrease la bou6e un mat auquel 6taient fixds par des vis A bois deux 6criteaux. Ceux-ci 6taient A angle droit. mesuraient chacun environ trois pieds de longueur sur un pied de hauteur, et portaient la meme inscription: <<Danger-Falls Ahead.

En 1966, la bou6e ainsi munie des 6criteaux a 6t6 mise en place le 13 mai. A cette date, 1'6cluse ne fonctionnait pas encore. Les vannes h rideaux n'avaient pas encore 6t6 abaiss6es parce que la rivibre n'6tait pas encore en crue. Une longue exp6rience avait d6montr6 qu'il n'6tait ni convenable, ni utile de fermer ces vannes et rideaux avant que le d6bit de l'eau en aval du pont Redwood dans la ville de Winnipeg, quelque quinze ou dix-huit milles en amont de l'6cluse St. Andrew, n'ait diminu6 A 10,300 pieds cubes A la seconde. Aprbs le 13 mai, la crue de la rivibre 6tait telle que la plate-forme de la boude, attach6e A I'ancre de 400 livres par une chaine, se trouvait submerg6e ainsi que la bou6e, le mAt et les 6criteaux.

Selon toute probabilit6, c'est cette pouss6e des eaux de la rivibre qui a emport6 les 6criteaux. Le premier s'est d6tach6 pendant le mois de mai et, au d6but de la semaine du 6 juin 1966, le surintendant a remarqu6 que le second n'6tait plus au mat surmontant la bou6e. Pour installer les 6criteaux on s'6tait servi d'une chaloupe de 19 pieds de longueur, remis6e ensuite dans 1'6cluse par pr6caution. Aprbs la disparition du premier 6criteau, le surintendant ne voulait pas sortir la chaloupe de l'6cluse et prendre le risque d'aller sur la rivibre le remplacer, le courant en p6riode de crue 6tant si fort qu'il aurait mis la vie du personnel en danger. Quand, quelques jours aprbs le 6 juin, il a remarqu6 que le second 6criteau avait 6galement 6t6 emport6, il aurait 6t6 possible de se servir de la chaloupe pour remplacer les 6criteaux, mais la baisse des eaux avait mis le canal A sec et la chaloupe se trouvait immobilis6e dans l'6cluse, de sorte qu'on ne pouvait pas s'en servir. De plus, les pr6pos6s de la Couronne s'attendaient que le d6bit de la rivibre diminuerait assez pour permettre d'abaisser les vannes et rideaux. Cette operation aurait fait monter le niveau de I'eau en amont du barrage, ce qui to the point where it would become appropriate to lower the gates and curtains. That action would, of course, have increased the depth of the water above the dam, and would therefore have flooded the canal channel so that the work boat could have been used.

The date for the lowering of the gates and curtains was successively postponed on several occasions because of surges in the flood tide and, in fact, they were not lowered until the 20th of

June, the day immediately following the fatal accident with which this petition is concerned.

I shall hereafter deal with the conduct of the suppliant Egan Hendricks but it is my intention to first deal with the allegation that the Crown was liable because of the negligence of Crown servants. There is no doubt that this concrete weir across the navigable channel did create a dangerous menace to navigation. The Crown servants realized that danger and had placed on the buoy which indicated the turn into the canal channel the signs warning of the falls ahead. The

Crown servants in doing so were, in my opinion, carrying out their proper duty to warn against the danger to navigation which the Crown itself had created. The Crown servants noticing the disappearance of those signs had failed to replace them. So long as the river was in heavy flood,

I am of the opinion that that failure may be excused for two reasons, firstly, that advanced by the superintendent that to attempt to launch a boat into the river would have endangered the lives of the Crown workmen who would be the crew of that boat and, secondly, that the river in such flood there could be no boat traffic to warn. But the situation after the 6th of

June 1966, in my opinion, differed materially.

At that time, the superintendent admitted that it would have been quite feasible to have replaced the warning signs had he a boat available; and he admitted further that the boat need not have been a very large boat but one of the size of their own work boat or of the size of that of the suppliant Egan Hendricks which went over the dam would have been sufficient. Surely the use of such a boat could have been arranged with a minimum of effort. The Crown servants' own work boat sat in the lock. It was only of the size of the suppliant's boat and, although the aurait rempli le canal et permis d'utiliser la chaloupe.

La fermeture des vannes et rideaux a remise h plusieurs reprises A cause d'accroissements de d6bit. Ce n'est que le 20 juin qu'on a abaiss6 les vannes, soit le lendemain de l'accident mortel dont d6coule la pr6sente p6tition de droit.

J'analyserai plus loin la conduite du p6titionnaire Egan Hendricks. Je veux d'abord considdrer 1'all6gation que la Couronne est responsable par suite de la n6gligence de ses pr6pos6s. Il n'y a pas de doute que le barrage en b6ton dans le chenal navigable constituait un grave danger pour la navigation. Les pr6pos6s de la Couronne, conscients de ce danger, avaient fait placer audessus de la bou6e qui indiquait le d6tour par le canal des 6criteaux signalant l'existence de la chute en aval. A mon avis, en agissant ainsi les pr6pos6s de la Couronne accomplissaient un devoir de leur charge, celui de signaler le danger pour la navigation, danger que la Couronne avait elle-m8me cr66. Les pr6pos6s de la Couronne, au courant de la disparition des 6criteaux ne les ont pas remplac6s. Je suis d'avis que tant que durait la forte crue de la rivibre, leur omission se justiflait de deux fagons: d'abord pour le motif invoqu6 par le surintendant, savoir que tenter d'aller sur la rivibre en chaloupe aurait mis en danger la vie de l'6quipage et ensuite parce que vu I'6tat de crue de la rivibre, il ne pouvait y avoir personne A mettre en garde. Cependant, aprbs le 6 juin 1966, les circonstances 6taient A mon avis tris diff&rentes. Le surintendant a admis qu'A ce moment-la, il lui aurait 6t6 tout a fait possible de remplacer les 6criteaux s'il avait eu une embarcation A sa disposition. II a 6galement admis qu'on n'avait pas besoin d'une embarcation trbs grande et qu'il aurait suffi d'en avoir une de la grandeur de leur chaloupe ou de celle du p6titionnaire Hendricks qui a passe pardessus le barrage. I est certain qu'on aurait pu assez facilement se procurer une embarcation de ce genre. La chaloupe des pr6pos6s 6tait dans l'6cluse. Elle n'6tait pas plus grosse que l'em- SenceJ.r19701

S.C.R. lock channel was dry, it could easily have been hauled over the berm and launched into the stream. There were in the immediate area other boats with outboard motors of up to 20 mph.

and the use of one of those could have been obtained, or the department could have obtained a boat any place between St. Andrew's Lock and

Winnipeg, head out down the stream as did the suppliant and go alongside the buoy to affix the signs. The circumstances to which I shall refer hereafter, and which resulted in the fatal accident to the late Mrs. Hendricks, illustrated the importance of replacing those warning signs on the buoy as soon as it was practicable to do so. I am of the opinion that there was negligence on the part of the servants of the Crown to fail to replace those signs immediately after the second sign was missing. That would have been about the 7th or 8th of June more than ten days before the date of the accident giving rise to this petition.

A similar failure to warn as to the dangerous menace to navigation was held in The King v.

Hochelaga, supra, to be within the provisions of what was then s. 19(c) of the Exchequer Court

Act. The liability of the Crown is now founded on the provisions of s. 3(1)

of the Crown

Liability Act, 1952-53 Statutes of Canada, c. 30, and which provides:

3.

(a) in respect of a tort committed by a servant of the Crown, or

(b) in respect of a breach of duty attaching to the ownership, occupation, possession or control of property.

In my view, the liability of the Crown arises under both paras. (a) and (b) of that section.

Counsel for the Crown has submitted a series of authorities which I have examined but in none of those authorities has it been held that the

Crown is not liable when it has placed in a navigable water a menace to navigation and has failed to adequately warn of such menace.

barcation du p6titionnaire et bien que 1'6cluse ait 6td vide A ce moment-4, on aurait pu facilement la tirer par-dessus la berme et la mettre A 1'eau. Il y avait, dans les environs imm6diats, d'autres embarcations 6quip6es de moteurs horsbord capables de filer A 20 milles A I'heure; on pouvait facilement s'en procurer une, ou bien le ministbre pouvait louer une embarcation n'importe ohi entre I'6cluse St. Andrew et Winnipeg, descendre la rivibre comme le p6titionnaire l'a fait, s'approcher de la boude et remplacer les 6criteaux. Les 6v6nements que je vais relater ci-aprbs et qui ont caus6 l'accident oil Mme Hendricks a perdu la vie ont d6montr6 I'importance de remplacer les 6criteaux de signalisation audessus de la boude aussit6t qu'il 6tait possible de le faire. Je suis d'avis que l'omission de remplacer ces 6criteaux imm6diatement apris que le second eut 6t6 emport6 constitue une n6gligence de la part des pr6posis de la Couronne. Ce remplacement aurait alors eu lieu vers le 7 ou le 8 juin, soit plus de dix jours avant I'accident qui est a l'origine de la pr6sente p6tition.

Dans l'affaire Le Roi c. Hochelaga (d6ja cit6e), on a jug6 qu'une omission similaire de signaler un grave danger A la navigation donnait lieu A 1'application des dispositions de l'art. 19(c) de la Loi sur la Cour de l'Achiquier, tel qu'il se lisait alors. La responsabilit6 de la Couronne est maintenant r6gie par I'art. 3(1) de la Loi sur la responsabilit6 de la Couronne, Statuts du Canada, 1952-1953, c. 30, qui se lit comme suit:

3. (1) La Couronne est responsable in tort des dommages dont elle serait responsable si elle 6tait un particulier en 6tat de majorit6 et de capacit6, (a) h l'6gard d'un acte prdjudiciable commis par un pr6pos6 de la Couronne, ou

(b) A l'6gard d'un manquement au devoir aff6rent h la propri6t6, I'occupation, la possession ou le contr6le de biens.

A mon avis, la Couronne est responsable en vertu des alin6as (a) et (b) de cet article. L'avocat de la Couronne a cit6 un certain nombre de pr6c6dents que j'ai 6tudids, mais en aucun de ces cas la Couronne n'a 6t6 exon6r6e de sa responsabilit6 apris avoir cr66 dans un cours d'eau navigable un danger pour la navigation et avoir manqu6 de signaler ce danger de fagon convenable.

LeJu~ Spnce251

In Cleveland-Cliffs SS. Co. v. The Queen , the claim was based upon a grounding and the question arose whether the grounding was within or outside a marked channel. That was a grounding on the bottom not a mishap caused by the placing of an artificial obstruction under the water level.

Iron Ore Transport Co. Ltd. v. The Queen , was another case of the striking of a submerged and unidentified object which was not alleged by the suppliants to be any obstruction placed by the Crown.

In The Queen v. Moss , Sir Henry Strong

C.J.C. said at p. 331:

I quite concede, however, that assuming this northerly channel to be navigable water the erection in the river of a dam, by means of which the bridge was formed, would have been a public nuisance, unless it was in some way legalized by the action or acquiescence of the Crown. It is not sufficient to justify the placing of an obstruction in a public river or harbour that upon a balance of convenience the structure causing an obstruction to navigation should be of great public utility, far outweighing any inconvenience caused by it as a hindrance to navigation.

As I have pointed out, in The King v.

Hochelaga, supra, the Crown was held liable for the dangerous menace to navigation which, in its result, had considerable resemblance to the case presently considered. There, a jetty had been constructed projecting at right angles from a breakwater. Before the jetty had been completed, about 50 feet of the upper portion of the outward end broke away leaving the lower portion of the cribwork and the rock ballast in position but entirely submerged. That submerged cribwork being invisible from the surface resembled the submerged weir in the present case which, on the 19th of June 1966, had some 28 inches of water flowing over the top of it. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the suppliants have established conduct of the Crown and its servants which would render the Crown subject to the liability claimed under s. 3(1) of the Crown Liability

Act.

S.C.R. D.L.R. C.R.T.C.

S.C.R.

Dans l'affaire Cleveland-Cliffs SS. Co. c. La Reine , la rclamation r6sultait d'un 6chouage et il s'agissait de d6terminer si celui-ci avait eu lieu dans le chenal balis6 ou en dehors. Dans ce cas-ld, il y avait eu 6chouage au fond et non pas accident caus6 par un obstacle artificiel install6 sous la surface de l'eau.

Dans l'affaire Iron Ore Transport Co. Ltd. c. La Reine , il y avait eu collision avec un objet submerg6 non identifi6, mais le p6titionnaire n'avait pas all6gu6 qu'il s'agissait d'un obstacle plac6 par la Couronne.

Dans 1'affaire La Reine c. Moss4, sir Henry Strong, Juge en chef du Canada, dit h la p. 331: Je reconnais volontiers que, si l'on tient le chenal nord pour navigable, la construction d'un barrage sur la rivibre pour servir de pont aurait 6t6 une atteinte aux droits du public, A moins que la Couronne ne la 16galise de quelque fagon. Il ne suffit pas, pour justifier la mise en place d'un obstacle dans une rivibre ou un port, que dans l'ensemble, les avantages de l'ouvrage nuisible A la navigation d6passent de beaucoup les inconv6nients A celle-ci. Comme je 1'ai d6jh fait remarquer, dans l'affaire Le Roi c. Hochelaga, d6ji cit6e, la Couronne a 6t6 tenue responsable parce qu'elle avait cr66 un grave danger pour la navigation qui a eu des effets trbs semblables a ceux que nous examinons dans la pr6sente cause. Dans cette affaire, on avait construit une jetbe qui s'avangait A angle droit A partir d'un brise-lames. Avant d'6tre termin6e, la partie sup6rieure de la jet6e s'est bris6e A l'extr6mit6 sur une longueur d'environ 50 pieds laissant la partie inf6rieure de la charpente et de l'empierrement en place mais complitement submergde.

Cette charpente submerg6e, invisible de la surface, ressemblait au barrage submerg6 dont il est question ici et par-dessus lequel il passait quelque 28 pouces d'eau le 19 juin 1966. Je suis done d'avis que le p6titionnaire a prouv6 que la Couronne et ses pr6pos6s ont commis un acte pr6judiciable qui la Tend responsable aux termes de I'art. 3(1) de la Loi sur la responsabilit6 de la Couronne.

The question to which I turn next is whether the conduct of the suppliant Egan Hendricks and the late Mrs. Hendricks disentitled them to recover. Egan Hendricks had been a resident of

Winnipeg all of his life and, during the 7 or 8 years preceding the accident, had engaged actively in the operation of a boat for pleasure on the Red River as well as on many other waters in the province. He had owned a somewhat smaller boat and, during the course of the previous years had travelled in that boat about

6 or 7 times from Winnipeg downstream to the

St. Andrew's Dam and Lock. On at least three of those occasions, he had proceeded through the

St. Andrew's Lock to some destination downstream north of the dam. He had, on other occasions, driven by automobile from Winnipeg to the area. On all of those occasions, he had seen the two signs on the buoy to which I have already referred. Although Egan Hendricks was a boatman of some experience and although he had, as a member of the Redboyne Boat Club, received instructions as to the safe operation of small boats and had been provided with a pamphlet "Safety Afloat" which contained an outline of the Canadian Buoyage system, it was quite evident from his testimony that he had no understanding whatsoever of that system and, in short, he understood buoys as being only for the purpose of warning of an obstruction below the surface of the water and did not understand their prime purpose, the marking of the limits of the navigab'e channel. There were some 13 buoys between Winnipeg and the St. Andrew's Lock which on these 6 or 7 occasions Egan Hendricks had passed as he progressed along the course of the river, but he did not remember any of them as having been red, although, of course, all the buoys marking the one side of the channel would be red in colour while others marking the opposite side of the channel would be black in colour.

Late in the year 1965, Egan Hendricks and the late Mrs. Hendricks, by the joint expenditure of their funds, purchased a new boat. This boat was 19 feet in length, had a beam of 7 feet and a depth of about 4 feet. This boat was propelled by a 90 h.p. Johnson outboard motor and its guidance was by a steering wheel on the starboard side toward the bow. The motor was

La question que j'6tudierai ensuite est celle de savoir si le comportement du p6titionnaire Egan Hendricks et de feu Mme Hendricks les prive du droit de recouvrer des dommages. Egan Hendricks avait demeur6 & Winnipeg toute sa vie et, pendant les 7 ou 8 ans pr6c6dant I'accident, il avait fait de la navigation de plaisance sur la rivibre Rouge et bon nombre d'autres cours d'eau de la province. II avait alors une embarcation un peu plus petite et au cours des ann6es pr6c6dentes, il avait fait 6 ou 7 fois, dans cette embarcation, le trajet en aval de Winnipeg jusqu'au barrage et & l'6cluse St. Andrew. Au moins A trois reprises au cours de ces excursions, il avait emprunt6 l'cluse St. Andrews pour se rendre quelque part en aval, au nord du barrage. D'autres fois, il s'6tait rendu en automobile de Winnipeg A cet endroit. Chaque fois, il avait vu les deux 6criteaux fix6s A la bou6e dont il a 6t6 question plus haut. Bien qu'Egan Hendricks ait eu quelque exp6rience de la navigation et qu'd titre de membre du club nautique Redboyne, on lui ait enseign6 les pr6cautions A prendre dans le maniement des petites embarcations et remis la brochure intitul6e <Safety Afloat> oii se trouve un apergu du systhme canadien de balisage, sa d6position d6montre A l'6vidence qu'il n'y comprenait absolument rien et, en r6sum6, pensait que les bou6es n'existaient que pour avertir d'un obstacle sous la surface, sans comprendre leur but primordial, soit le balisage du chenal navigable. II y a entre Winnipeg et l'6cluse St. Andrew quelque 13 bou6es qu'Egan Hendricks a crois6es au cours des 6 ou 7 excursions qu'il a faites sur la rivibre. Or, il ne se souvient pas que quelquesunes sont rouges, alors que, bien entendu, toutes celles qui d6limitent un c6t6 du chenal sont rouges et celles qui d6limitent l'autre, sont noires. Vers la fin de l'ann6e 1965, Egan Hendricks et feu Hendricks avaient achet6 A frais communs un nouveau bateau. Celui-ci mesurait 19 pieds de longueur, 7 pieds de bau et environ 4 pieds de profondeur. II 6tait 6quip6 d'un moteur hors-bord Johnson de 90 CV et se gouvernait au moyen d'un volant plac6 A tribord A l'avant. Le fonctionnement du moteur se commandait par un operated by a unit control, one lever installed on the starboard bulwark which when pressed forward first engaged the forward gear and then when the pressure forward continued increased the speed of the motor and, similarly, when pressed backward first engaged the reverse gear and then on further pressure increased the speed of the motor in reverse. This boat was one month old when it was purchased by the Hendricks. It had been used very slightly, if at all, in the year 1965, and most infrequently in the year

1966. On June 19, 1966, the suppliant Egan

Hendricks, his late wife, and a friend, Mr. John

Atkinson, left the Redboyne Boat Club about

1:00 p.m. intending to go downstream and probably to Selkirk, which is some very considerable distance north, i.e., downstream, from the

St. Andrew's Dam and Lock. The suppliant Egan

Hendricks operated the boat at first with the late

Mrs. Hendricks and Mr. Atkinson as passengers.

To operate the boat, Mr. Hendricks sat on the starboard side facing forward, i.e., immediately behind the steering wheel. There was a like seat on the port side facing forward and then two seats faced the stern one behind each of the forward seats. When the party left after having lunch, the late Mrs. Hendricks took over the operation of the boat and Egan Hendricks and Mr. Atkinson sat in the seats facing the stern and conversed.

The party was proceeding up to the St. Andrew's

Dam and Lock and Mrs. Hendricks steered the boat toward the channel going down the west side of the artificial island toward the lock. It became apparent at once to Mr. Hendricks and it must have been as apparent to the late Mrs.

Hendricks that the lock was not in operation as the berm of dry land across the channel was quite visible. In' my view, the Hendricks' ignorance as to 'the Canadian Buoyage System is irrelevant as Mrs. Hendricks when operating the boat did keep the black buoy to her starboard side when she was proceeding downstream and, therefore, considering that the buoy marked the starboard side of the channel for downstream navigation, she left it on her starboard side. When it was apparent that the channel was blocked then, on Mr. Hendricks' evidence, Mrs. Hendricks turned back into the channel with the intention of starting back upstream toward Winnipeg. This dispositif install6 sur la paroi de tribord, une pouss6e vers l'avant sur un seul levier embrayant d'abord la marche avant et acc6l6rant ensuite le moteur selon la pression exerc6e. De la meme manibre, le mouvement vers l'arribre du levier embrayait d'abord la marche arribre et acc6l6rait ensuite le moteur en marche arribre. Quand les Hendricks ont achet6 ce bateau, il avait un mois d'usage. II avait tris peu servi, peut-6tre pas du tout en 1965, et tras rarement en 1966. Le 19 juin 1966, le p6titionnaire Egan Hendricks, feu sa femme et M. John Atkinson, un ami, sont partis du club nautique Redboyne vers une heure de I'aprbs-midi. Ils projetaient de descendre la rivibre probablement jusqu'A Selkirk, qui se trouve beaucoup plus loin au nord, en aval du barrage et de l'6cluse St. Andrew. C'est le p6titionnaire, Hendricks qui conduisait au 46part; feu Hendricks et M. Atkinson l'accompagnaient comme passagers. Pour conduire, M. Hendricks 6tait assis juste derribre le volant, a tribord et tourn6 vers l'avant. Il y avait un autre siege a babord 6galement face h la proue, et derribre les sidges avant deux autres sibges faisant face A la banquette arribre. Quand le groupe est reparti, aprbs avoir mang6, c'est feu Hendricks qui a pris le volant; MM. Hendricks et Atkinson ont pris les sieges tourn6s vers I'arribre et ont convers6 entre eux. Le groupe se dirigeait vers le barrage et l'6cluse St. Andrew et feu Hendricks conduisait l'embarcation en direction du canal h l'ouest de lile artificielle vers l'6cluse. M. Hendricks s'est apergu tout de suite, comme sa femme a dai le faire aussi, que l'6cluse ne fonctionnait pas, car on pouvait facilement voir le fond du canal, qui 6tait A sec. A mon avis, l'ignorance des Hendricks au sujet du systhme canadien de balisage n'entre pas en ligne de compte puisque pendant qu'elle conduisait l'embarcation dans le sens du courant, Hendricks a effectivement gard6 la bou6e noire A tribord et, par cons6quent, puisque la bou6e indiquait le c6t6 droit du chenal pour la navigation dans le sens du courant, elle a conduit de fagon A avoir la bou6e toujours h tribord. D'apris la d6position de M. Hendricks, quand sa femme s'est rendu compte que le canal 6tait ferm6, elle est revenue dans le chenal avec l'intention de repartir a contre-courant vers Winnipeg. MM. [19701 R.C.S.

left Mr. Hendricks and Mr. Atkinson, sitting as they were facing the stem, looking downstream toward the dam. Mr. Hendricks swore that he then perceived that the river flowed past the six piers with no kind of obstruction whatsoever and without any apparent break in the level of the water. In fact, looking under the bridge and between the piers, he saw several small boats to the north side of the bridge where the occupants were apparently engaged in fishing. At this time, the Hendricks boat was about one-quarter of a mile upstream, i.e., south of the bridge, and Mr.

Hendricks was unshaken in his evidence that from that point there was no evidence whatsoever of any fall in the level of the water passing beneath the bridge. As I have said, Mr. Hendricks had, on 6 or 7 occasions before when at this area perceived a considerable waterfall on the north side of the bridge. Mr. Hendricks was equally certain in his evidence that on each of those occasions the gates and curtains were down and the slats were closed. Of course, at that time,

Mr. Hendricks would have expected to see a waterfall on the downstream side of the dam. The purpose of the dam was to lift the level of the water and on the north side of the dam there would have had to be a waterfall. On this occasion, there was no dam whatsoever. The gates and curtains were all up beneath the floor of the bridge. The concrete weir part of the dam was hidden by 28" of water flowing over it. Of course, if one had been on the north side of the dam, one could most easily have perceived a waterfall of some 4 to 5 feet but from onequarter of a mile south, i.e., upstream of the dam, that waterfall would be quite imperceptible.

Mr. Hendricks had seen the signs warning of the fall. He had noted that on this particular occasion those signs were not in place. Mr.

Hendricks had noted that it was quite evidently impossible to get through the lock. He testified, therefore, that from these observations, he came to the conclusion that the fall created by the dam which he had observed on other occasions did not exist when the dam was open and -the lock was not in use and that, therefore, the removal of the signs must indicate that there was no danger of falls and that his boat could proceed downstream without danger.

Mr. Hendricks

Hendricks et Atkinson se sont donc trouv6s A regarder vers le barrage, puisqu'ils 6taient assis face A 1'arribre du bateau. M. Hendricks a jur6 qu'il a alors cm que la rivibre continuait audela des six piliers sans aucun obstacle et sans diffirence de niveau & la surface de l'eau. II a mime vu, en regardant sous le pont, entre les piliers, plusieurs petites embarcations qui se trouvaient au nord du pont et dont les occupants semblaient picher. A ce moment-4a, le bateau des Hendricks se trouvait a environ un quart de mille en amont du pont c'est-a-dire au sud et M. Hendricks a persist6 A affirmer en contreinterrogatoire qu'A cet endroit il n'y avait aucun signe visible de chute du niveau de l'eau sous le pont. Comme je l'ai ddjA dit, M. Hendricks avait, en 6 ou 7 occasions dans ces parages constat6 une grosse chute du c6t6 nord du pont. Il s'est dit convaincu, quand il a t6moign6, que toutes les fois qu'il avait vu ces chutes, les vannes 6taient abaiss6es et les rideaux ferm6s. De toute 6vidence, a chacune de ces occasions, il s'6tait attendu a voir une chute en aval du barrage. Le r6le du barrage consistait a 61ever le niveau de l'eau et il fallait qu'il y efit une chute au nord du barrage. Par contre, le jour de l'accident, il n'y avait aucun barrage. Les vannes avec leurs rideaux 6taient complktement relev6s sous le tablier du pont. La digue en b6ton 6tait cach6e par les 28 pouces d'eau coulant par dessus. tvidemment, un observateur plac6 au nord du barrage pouvait facilement voir la chute de 4 A 5 pieds de hauteur, mais pour celui qui se trouvait un quart de mille au sud du barrage, c'est-a-dire en amont de celui-ci, la chute 6tait tout A fait invisible.

M. Hendricks avait d6ja vu les 6criteaux signalant 1'existence de la chute. II a remarqu6 que ce jour-la, ces 6criteaux n'6taient pas II s'est 6galement rendu compte qu'il 6tait manifestement impossible de passer par I'6cluse. II a d6pos6 avoir conclu de ces observations que la chute causee par le barrage qu'il avait vue pr6c6demment n'existait pas quand le barrage 6tait ouvert et que I'6cluse ne fonctionnait pas, et qu'en cons6quence, 1'enl6vement des 6criteaux indiquait qu'il n'y avait pas de chute A craindre et qu'il pouvait sans risque continuer en aval dans son embarcation. E a d6clar6 que selon testified that from all appearances this bridge was just like the many other bridges between

Winnipeg and the St. Andrew's Lock and his boat had passed safely beneath them all. Mr.

Hendricks, therefore, instructed or suggested to the late Mrs. Hendricks that she should turn and pass beneath the bridge in the ordinary course, warning her to keep in the centre in order to avoid any obstructions which might be along the edge of the river. Mrs. Hendricks did operate the boat at some 10 or 12 miles an hour to the space between the 3rd and 4th piers from the west side. The boat so proceeded until it was within 50 feet of the weir. At that time, it became apparent to the late Mrs. Hendricks as well as to both Mr. Hendricks and Mr. Atkinson that there was a waterfall. The stream moved much more swiftly and the roar of the water as it went over the falls was audible. Mrs. Hendricks attempted to turn the boat in order to go back upstream. This, of course, only resulted in the boat going broadside to the current. There is a contradiction as to whether she attempted to reverse the propeller. Mr. Hendricks, at trial, testified firmly that she did not do so and that he did not order her to do so but in a statement given by him to the RCMP on the day of the accident and very shortly thereafter, he had said:

The wife tried to make a turn and so I said to put it in reverse. She put it in to reverse and the motor kicked up.

The passenger John Atkinson in a statement made at the same time said:

As we approached closer, we noticed there was quite a drop so Irene tried to get the boat in reverse but could not. Egan tried to get the motor in reverse but the motor kicked up.

The outboard motor in the Hendricks boat was held in its position down into the water by a lock. This lock was controlled in two different ways: firstly, there was on the dashboard and just to the left of the steering wheel, a lever which thrown one way would tilt the motor up and the other way would tilt it down, secondly, there was a manual control back at the motor.

The motor could be driven either locked in the down position or without the lock on. Egan toutes les apparences, ce pont 6tait semblable A tous les autres ponts de Winnipeg et I'6cluse St. Andrew qu'il avait franchis sans accident. II a donc recommand6 ou sugg6r6 h feu sa femme de changer de direction et de passer sous ce pont comme sous tous les autres, lui disant de se tenir au centre de la rivibre pour 6viter tout obstacle qui aurait pu se trouver prbs des rives. Hendricks s'est dirig6e h une vitesse de 10 & 12 milles A l'heure vers l'ouverture entre le et le piliers, A partir du c6t6 ouest. Le bateau s'est ainsi approch6 a environ 50 pieds du barrage. C'est alors que feu Hendricks aussi bien que MM. Hendricks et Atkinson se sont rendu compte de l'existence de la chute. Le courant 6tait beaucoup plus rapide et on pouvait entendre le grondement de 1'eau tombant pardessus la digue. Mme Hendricks a tent6 de faire demi-tour pour remonter le courant. Cette manouvre ne r6ussit 6videmment qu'd placer le bateau en travers du courant. Les timoignages sont contradictoires sur la question de savoir si Mme Hendricks a tent6 de faire marche arribre. Au procks, M. Hendricks a affirm6 cat6goriquement qu'elle ne l'a pas fait et qu'il ne lui a pas dit de le faire, mais dans sa d6claration la Gendarmerie royale du Canada, le jour de Paccident, trbs peu de temps apris, il a dit:

Ma femme a essay6 de faire demitour et je lui ai dit de faire marche arribre. Elle I'a fait mais le moteur est sorti de I'eau.

M. John Atkinson, le passager, a dit dans sa d6claration qu'il a faite en m~me temps: En arrivant plus prbs, nous avons constat6 qu'il y avait une grande d6nivellation. Irkne a donc essay6 de mettre le bateau en marche arribre mais elle n'a pas r6ussi. Egan a essay6 de mettre le moteur en marche arribre mais le moteur est sorti de l'eau.

Il y avait un verrou pour tenir le moteur horsbord du bateau des Hendricks abaiss6 dans l'eau. Ce verrou se commandait de deux fagons: il y avait sur la planche de bord, juste A gauche du volant, un levier qui, actionn6 dans un sens, faisait remonter le moteur et dans 1'autre sens le faisait basculer vers le bas; il y avait 6galement une commande manuelle sur le moteur luim~me. On pouvait piloter le bateau en mettant le moteur dans la position abaiss6e, que le verrou Hendricks testified that on this occasion the boat was being operated without the lock on so that if the propeller hit any submerged object the motor would come up without causing damage to it. He also admitted that when the lock was not in position and the motor was suddenly put into reverse the motor would come up out of the water with the result that neither the motor nor the attached rudder being in the water the boat could not be controlled in any way.

The learned trial judge found as negligence on the part of the suppliants the operation of the boat with the motor not locked in place and has evidently accepted the suppliant Egan Hendricks' earlier statement that the motor kicked up when an attempt was made to reverse the boat rather than his evidence at the trial that it was kicked up when the motor hit what the suppliant Hendricks described as a shelf but which must have been the top of the weir.

I am of the opinion that no negligence in failing to put the lock on the motor before attempting to put it into reverse caused or contributed to the accident. Neither the suppliant

Hendricks nor the late Mrs. Hendricks had attempted any evasive action, on Hendricks testimony, until their craft was within 50 feet of the submerged weir. Even if they had succeeded in getting the motor locked no putting of the motor into reverse could have avoided the catastrophe in the short seconds it would take the craft to go that distance of 50 feet and be over the dam. It was then relentlessly in the grip of the current headed over the dam. Moreover, it was broadside to the current due to the late

Mrs. Hendricks' attempt to turn and even if the motor were operating in reverse with throttle open it could have had no preventive effect on the events which occurred. Those events were, of course, going over the top of the weir and down the five-foot falls. The boat was held under the falling water by the turbulence, filled and capsized. The late Mrs. Hendricks was drowned.

Now on those facts, was either the suppliant

Egan Hendricks or the late Mrs. Hendricks guilty of such negligence as would bar the supsoit enclench6 ou non. Egan Hendricks a dit dans sa d6position que lors de l'accident, le verrou n'6tait pas enclench6, de sorte que si 1'h6lice donnait contre un obstacle submerg6, le moteur se rel~verait sans l'endommager. II a 6galement admis que quand le verrou n'6tait pas enclench6, si l'on faisait subitement marche arribre, le moteur sortait de I'eau, avec le r6sultat que, 1'h61ice et le gouvernail une fois sortis de l'eau, on ne pouvait plus mancuvrer le bateau d'aucune manibre.

Le savant Juge de premiere instance a conclu A n6gligence de la part du p6titionnaire dans le fait de se servir du bateau sans avoir verrouill6 le moteur en place. Il s'est strement fi6 A la premibre d6claration de M. Hendricks A l'effet que le moteur s'est relev6 quand on a essay6 de le mettre en marche arribre, plut6t qu'A son t6moignage au procks A l'effet que le moteur est sorti hors de l'eau quand il a frapp6 ce que M. Hendricks a d6crit comme un 6cueil mais qui devait &tre le sommet de la digue.

Je suis d'avis que la n6gligence consistant A ne pas avoir verrouill6 le moteur avant de tenter de le mettre en marche arribre n'a pas caus6 l'accident et n'y a pas contribu6. D'apris la d6position de M. Hendricks, ni lui, ni feu sa femme n'ont fait aucune manceuvre pour 6viter l'accident avant que l'embarcation n'ait t A moins de 50 pieds de la digue submerg6e. Meme s'ils avaient r6ussi h enclencher le verrou du moteur, la marche arribre ne leur aurait pas permis d'6viter la catastrophe durant les quelques secondes que le bateau a mis A franchir ces 50 pieds avant de sauter pardessus le barrage. II 6tait alors irr6m6diablement prisonnier du courant vers le barrage. De plus, A cause de la tentative de feu Hendricks de faire demi-tour, le bateau se trouvait en travers du courant; m8me la marche arribre A plein gaz n'aurait pas chang6 le cours des 6v6nements qui ont suivi. Ces 6v6nements sont, naturellement, le franchissement de la digue et un plongeon dans la chute de 5 pieds. Le tourbillonnement de 1'eau a retenu le bateau sous la chute, celui-ci s'est empli d'eau et a chavir6. Mme Hendricks s'est noyee.

Dans ces circonstances, est-ce que la n6gligence d'Egan Hendricks ou de fen sa femme est telle qu'elle le prive du droit d'obtenir r6paration de la [19701 S.C.R. ueSec pliant recovering from the Crown in either his personal capacity or as administrator of the estate of his late wife? Certainly Cattanach J. so held in his reasons:

On the theory of legal causation his acts were the sole proximate cause of his harm. He was in a practical sense the author of his own misfortune even though the respondent might not have been without fault, but with respect to which I make no finding. This is not a case within the Tortfeasors and Contributory Negligence Act, 1954, R.S.M.

chapter 266 because, as I have indicated, the negligence of the suppliants was the sole cause of the damage suffered.

Ritchie J. has come to a similar conclusion.

With respect, I am of the opinion that such a conclusion is based on a misinterpretation of the evidence. Firstly, as I have said, the Red River was from the earliest days a navigable system and the suppliant had a legal right to be there. It is true that "navigation season" had not opened.

Section 1(g) of the Regulations for the Use and

Operation of St. Andrew's Lock, P.C. 6514/49, a copy of which the suppliant acknowledged had been supplied to him on an earlier trip through the lock, defined that season as being the period between the opening and closing of the lock for traffic. Section 4 thereof provided that the lock would be open each day and night during the

"season of navigation" but the suppliant was not attempting to go through the lock at a time other than during the "season of navigation".

The lock plainly and visibly was not in operation, the channel thereto being barred by a berm of mud. What the appellant tried to do was to pass downstream under the bridge. Section 17(1)

of the same regulations provided:

Vessels approaching Lock or Bridge

17.

.of any such vessel in sufficient time to avoid a collision with the lock or its gates, or with the bridge or other works.

The suppliant complied with the first requirement of this regulation and did determine that the lock was not prepared to allow him to enter.

Couronne, soit A titre personnel, soit en qualit6 d'administrateur de la succession de son 6pouse? C'est sfirement ainsi que le Juge Cattanach en a d6cid6 dans ses motifs de jugement:

[TIADUCTION]

D'apris la thdorie juridique de la causalit6, ses actes ont 6t6 la seule cause prochaine de son malheur. II a

&6, toutes fins pratiques, I'auteur de sa propre infortune, bien que l'intimbe ne soit pas n6cessairement sans reproche, mais je n'6mets pas d'opinion sur cette dernibre question. La loi intitul6e The Tortfeasors and Contributory Negligence Act, 1954, S.R.M. ch. 266, ne s'applique pas ici parce que, comme je viens de le dire, la n6gligence des p6titionnaires a 6t6 la seule cause du dommage qu'ils ont subi.

Le Juge Ritchie en est venu A la m8me conclusion. En toute d6f6rence, je suis d'avis que cela d6coule d'une appr6ciation erron6e de la preuve. D'abord, comme je i'ai d6jh dit, la rivibre Rouge est un cours d'eau navigable depuis toujours et le p6titionnaire avait un droit strict de s'y trouver. II est vrai que la <saison de navigation> n'6tait pas encore ouverte. L'article 1(g) des R~glements pour l'utilisation et l'exploitation de l'dcluse St. Andrews (C.P. 6514/49), dont le p6titionnaire a reconnu avoir regu une copie lors d'un passage pr6c6dent dans 1'6cluse, d6finit la «saison de navigation comme la p6riode qui s6pare 1'ouverture et la fermeture de l'6cluse A la circulation. L'article 4 6dicte que 1'6cluse sera ouverte jour et nuit pendant la asaison de navigation>, mais le pititionnaire n'essayait pas d'emprunter I'6cluse hors de la qsaison de navigation>. L'6cluse 6tait manifestement fermde, le canal qui y mane 6tant bloqu6 par un remblai de terre. Ce que l'appelant a voulu faire, c'est passer sous le pont. L'article 17(1) des R~glements d6crite:

Navires sapprochant d'une cluse ou d'un pont 17. (1) Il incombe au capitaine ou A la personne qui a la charge du navire, lorsqu'il s'approche d'une 6cluse ou d'un pont, de s'assurer si cette 6cluse ou ce pont est pr&t A laisser entrer ou passer son navire, et il doit r6duire la vitesse de son navire assez t6t pour 6viter toute collision avec l'6cluse ou ses portes ou avec le pont ou les autres ouvrages.

Le p6titionnaire s'est conform6 A la premiere exigence de ce riglement en constatant que l'6cluse n'6tait pas pr8te h le laisser entrer. Je I am of the opinion that he also complied with the second requirement and determined that the bridge was prepared to allow him to enter. The suppliant, as I have stressed, had never seen the lock, dam and bridge except when the gates and curtains were down and had then and only then observed a waterfall on the north side thereof.

On those occasions, he had also noted signs on the buoys warning of "Danger-Falls Ahead", referring to the very falls which he had observed.

On this occasion, he observed from the south end of the channel, and then again from midstream, an ordinary six-pier bridge with no sign of any dam or gate or curtain. The suppliant, neither then nor on previous occasions, saw any concrete weir. In normal flow of water, that weir was covered with 14 feet of water, and even with the dam open with 28 inches of water.

The suppliant, when the gates and curtains had been lowered on these previous occasions, had observed the signs warning of the waterfall and had also observed the waterfall which was the subject of such warning.

On June 19, on the other hand, the signs were not present and the gates and curtains which he knew caused the waterfall had been raised. The suppliant, therefore, concluded that the gates and curtains not being in place to stay the flow of the stream and cause the water to pile up against them, there would be no difference in the level of the water at either side of the bridge. I am of the opinion that the suppliant was justified in coming to that conclusion. From the point where he made the observation, about 400 yards to the south of the bridge and dam, he could neither see nor hear the waterfall and could see small boats in the area just north of the bridge. The suppliant was entirely ignorant of the large totally submerged concrete weir. Under all the circumstances present on the 19th of June, I have concluded that the suppliant, when he stood up in his boat at this point 400 yards away from the dam and bridge and looked north, was not negligent in determining that his boat could pass safely under the bridge and in instructing the late Mrs. Hendricks to so proceed.

However, the suppliant then sat down in the seat facing the stern and resumed his conversasuis d'avis qu'il s'est 6galement conform6 A la deuxibme prescription en d6cidant que le pont 6tait prt A le laisser passer. J'ai d6ji insist6 sur le fait que le p6titionnaire n'avait jamais vu l'6cluse, le barrage et le pont sauf quand les vannes et rideaux 6taient abaiss6s et c'est alors et alors seulement qu'il avait vu une chute du c6t6 nord. En ces occasions il avait 6galement remarqub les 6criteaux sur la boude signalant le danger que repr6sentait la chute (Danger- Falls Ahead), cette chute-lh qu'il avait vue. Le jour de l'accident, il a vu en venant du c6t6 sud du chenal et ensuite au centre, un pont ordinaire A six piliers, sans aucun signe de l'existence d'un barrage ou de vannes. Le pititionnaire n'a jamais vu, ni alors, ni ant6rieurement, la digue en b6ton. Lorsque le niveau de l'eau 6tait normal, cette digue 6tait recouverte de 14 pieds d'eau, et, quand le barrage 6tait ouvert, de 28 pouces d'eau. Alors que les vannes et rideaux 6taient abaiss6s les fois pr6c6dentes, le p6titionnaire avait remarqu6 les 6criteaux pr6venant de la chute et la chute elle-m8me qui faisait l'objet de l'avertissement.

Par contre, le 19 juin, les 6criteaux n'6taient pas et les vannes et rideaux qu'il savait 6tre la cause de la chute 6taient relev6s. Le p6titionnaire en a donc conclu que puisque les vannes et les rideaux n'6taient pas en place pour retenir 1'eau et la faire monter, il n'y avait pas de diff6rence de niveau entre les deux c6t6s du pont. Je suis d'avis que le p6titionnaire 6tait justifi6 de tirer cette conclusion. De 1'endroit oh il a regard6, soit & environ 400 verges au sud du pont-barrage, il ne pouvait ni voir ni entendre la chute, et il pouvait voir de petites embarcations juste au nord du pont. Le p6titionnaire ignorait tout de 1'existence de la grosse digue en b6ton qui 6tait totalement submerg6e. En tenant compte de toutes les circonstances pr6sentes le 19 juin, je conclus que le p6titionnaire, quand il s'est lev6 debout dans son bateau A 400 verges du pont-barrage et qu'il a regard6 en direction nord, n'a pas commis une n6gligence en jugeant que son bateau pouvait sans danger passer sous le pont et en disant A sa femme de le faire.

Toutefois, le p6titionnaire s'est alors assis face A I'arridre et a repris sa conversation avec M. tion with the passenger Mr. Atkinson. The boat moved forward at a speed of about 10 or 12 miles an hour. At the former speed, it would take 60 seconds to cover the 400 yards to the bridge. During that time, the suppliant should have been keeping a very close watch. The manoeuvre which he had directed the late Mrs.

Hendricks to carry out was unusual and was one which he had not previously performed. There would seem to have been plenty of time to stop the forward progress of the boat had the suppliant and the others in the boat been alert. It is to be remembered that other small boats running back and forth across the fore bay had moved the superintendent to install the warning signs and that those boats, although their occupants had endangered themselves, had escaped in safety. Unfortunately, neither the suppliant nor the late Mrs. Hendricks, nor indeed their passenger Mr. Atkinson, sensed anything was amiss until the boat was only 50 feet upstream from the waterfall of 4 or 5 feet where the water tumbled over the northerly edge of the concrete weir. The learned trial judge assessed that weir as being

35 feet wide at the base. A reference to the sketch which he used (Ex. 9) would appear to show that the weir was 30 feet wide across its top. So the boat must have been only 20 feet south of the southerly edge of the weir when the late Mrs. Hendricks operating it and the other two at the same moment appreciated their plight. As I have pointed out, it was then impossible to prevent the catastrophe, particularly when in an attempt to go back upstream the late Mrs. Hendricks had turned the boat so it was broadside to the rushing current. I am of the opinion that this lack of proper attention and failure to keep the boat under control during the progress forward from the point of turning to the moment when, all too late, they appreciated the danger, was negligence on the part of the suppliant and of the late Mrs. Hendricks.

I am, however, not of the opinion that this negligence can be separated in time from that which I have outlined above as being attributable to the Crown. It was the negligence in the failure to replace the warning signs which caused the suppliant to determine to carry out what turned out to be a fatal manoeuvre and which led him

Atkinson. Le bateau allait A 10 ou 12 milles A l'heure environ. A cette vitesse, il a dfi mettre 60 secondes a parcourir les 400 verges qui le s6paraient du pont. Pendant ce temps-lA, Hendricks aurait di tout surveiller trbs attentivement. La manoeuvre qu'il avait demand6 A feu Mme Hendricks de faire 6tait inhabituelle et il ne l'avait jamais ex6cut6e auparavant. I semble que si le p6titionnaire et les autres occupants de I'embarcation avaient 6t6 attentifs, ils auraient eu amplement le temps d'arr~ter la marche en avant du bateau. On doit se rappeler que les petites embarcations qui se promenaient derribre le barrage et qui avaient d6cid6 le surintendant h installer les 6criteaux de signalisation, avaient 6vit6 tout accident, bien que leurs occupants aient couru un certain danger. Malheureusement, ni le p6titionnaire ni feu Hendricks, et encore moins leur passager, M. Atkinson, n'ont remarqu6 quoi que ce soit d'anormal avant que le bateau ne soit qu'd 50 pieds en amont de la chute de 4 ou 5 pieds, form6e par 1'eau ddvalant la paroi nord de la digue en b6ton. Le savant Juge de premibre instance a estim6 que cette digue avait 35 pieds de largeur A sa base. D'aprbs I'esquisse dont il s'est servi (pi&ce no 9) il semble que la digue ait mesur6 30 pieds de largeur A sa partie sup6rieure. Le bateau devait donc 6tre h seulement 20 pieds de l'ar&e sud de la digue lorsque feu Hendricks, qui pilotait, et les deux autres occupants se sont rendu compte de leur situation. Comme je l'ai d6jA fait remarquer, il 6tait alors impossible d'6viter la catastrophe, surtout aprbs la tentative de feu Hendricks de faire demi-tour, ce qui avait plac6 1'embarcation en travers du courant pr6cipit6. Je suis d'avis que l'inattention du p6titionnaire et de feu M Hendricks et leur d6faut de garder la maitrise du bateau au cours du trajet depuis le point oii ils ont fait demi-tour jusqu'A l'instant oti ils ont compris trop tard le danger constituent une n6gligence qui leur est imputable. Je ne suis pas d'avis, cependant, qu'il soit possible de dissocier cette n6gligence de celle que j'ai fait ressortir plus haut et qui est imputable h la Couronne. C'est I'omission de remplacer les 6criteaux de signalisation qui a amen6 le p6titionnaire A ex6cuter ce qui s'est r6v6l6 une manceuvre funeste et qui lui a fait croire que feu Mme to believe that the late Mrs. Hendricks could drive the boat forward under the bridge safely.

Acts of negligence on both sides were, in my opinion, operating simultaneously.

I am further of the opinion that the suppliant and his late wife are identified in the negligent operation of the boat. It was the suppliant who determined that the boat should be driven under the bridge and so instructed his wife. It was the suppliant who sat facing the stern and failed to keep a proper lookout which would have warned him of the danger in time. However, the late

Mrs. Hendricks, with the same knowledge as her husband, did drive the boat forward and she herself failed to keep the sharp lookout necessary.

They committed the same acts of negligence.

Therefore, as to both the suppliant claiming on his own behalf and as administrator of the estate of his late wife, I would apply the Tortfeasors and Contributory Negligence Act, R.S.M. 1954, c. 266. I am of the opinion that the facts which

I have outlined justify the equal division of the negligence between the suppliant and the Crown.

The learned trial judge, despite his refusal to grant any relief, very properly made a detailed assessment of the damages which he would have awarded had he found otherwise on the question of liability. The learned trial judge set these damages out as follows:

670.00

............

Nil

Act for funeral expenses .............

929.11

Accidents Act and the Trustee Act for pecuniary loss to the suppliant and and his daughter

................

20,000.00

............

2,500.00

Hendricks pouvait passer sous le pont sans danger. La n6gligence des deux parties a, A mon avis, contribu6 simultandment A I'accident. Je suis 6galement d'avis que la n6gligence du p6titionnaire et celle de feu M Hendricks se confondent. C'est le p6titionnaire qui a d6cid6 de passer sous le pont et qui a dit A sa femme de le faire. C'est le p6titionnaire qui s'est assis tourn6 vers l'arribre et qui n'a pas exerc6 la surveillance appropri6e qui lui aurait permis de se rendre compte A temps du danger. Toutefois, feu Mme

Hendricks, qui avait connaissance des mimes faits que son mari, a conduit l'embarcation et elle aussi a manqu6 d'apporter la surveillance attentive qui s'imposait. Ils ont commis une n6gligence commune. En cons6quence comme le p6titionnaire r6clame tant en son nom personnel qu'en qualit6 d'administrateur de la succession de feu son 6pouse, j'appliquerais la loi dite The Tortfeasors and Contributory Negligence Act, S.R.M. 1954, c. 266. Je suis d'avis que les faits que j'ai soulign6s motivent I'imputation A parts 6gales de la n6gligence au p6titionnaire et A la Couronne.

Le savant Juge de premiere instance, tout en refusant d'accorder des dommages, a, comme il convient, 6tabli de fagon d6taill6e le montant des dommages qu'il aurait accord6s s'il avait conclu autrement sur la question de la responsabilit6. II fixe ce montant comme suit:

Dommages sp6cifiques en faveur du p6titionnaire pour avarie A son bateau et perte de biens personnels $ 670.00 Dommages g~ndraux en faveur du p~titionnaire, en son nom personnel ................

...........

N6ant Dommages sp6cifiques en vertu de Ia loi dite The Trustee Act pour frais fundraires

....................

929.11 Dommages g6n6raux en vertu des lois dites The Fatal Accidents Act et The Trustee Act pour pertes p cuniaires au p6titionnaire et A sa fille

20,000.00 Dommages g6ndraux en vertu de la loi dite The Trustee Act pour souffrances et perte d'expectative de vie ............................

2,500.00 [

R HENDRICKS REINE , Le Juge Spence

Counsel for the suppliant has agreed that the damage item set out by the learned trial judge in No. (5) is covered by the allowance made in

No. (4). With this I agree.

I would, therefore, allow the appeal with costs here and in the Exchequer Court and grant the appellant judgment for 50 per cent of the other damages as found by the learned trial judge, i.e., $21,599.11. That amount is $10,799.55.

Appeal allowed with costs, ABBOTT and

.

Micay & Company, Winnipeg.

Maxwell, Ottawa.

The Prospective Adoptive Parents and The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa

Appellants;

and

Sylvia Elaine Mugford

Respondent.

1969: November 6, 7; 1969: November 17.

Present: Cartwright C.J. and Fauteux, Abbott, Martland, Judson, Ritchie, Hall, Spence and Pigeon JJ.

FROM THE OF

FOR

Infants-Crown ward-Application by natural mother for custody of child-Dismissal of application by Juvenile and Family Court Judge based upon misapprehension as to meaning of s. 35(3) of The

Child Welfare Act, 1965 (Ont.), c. 14.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of

Appeal for Ontario", dismissing an appeal by the Children's Aid Society of Ottawa from an order pronounced by Honeywell Co.Ct.J., who allowed an appeal by the respondent natural

1[19701 1 O.R. D.L.R.

L'avocat du p6titionnaire a convenu que les dommages accord6s par le savant Juge de premibre instance sous le chef no 5 sont d6ji inclus sous le chef no 4. Je suis d'accord.

En cons6quence, je suis d'avis d'accueillir le pourvoi avec d6pens en cette Cour et A la Cour de I'tchiquier et d'adjuger i I'appelant 50 pour cent des autres dommages ($21,599.11) que le savant Juge de premiere instance a d6terminbs, soit la somme de $10,799.55.

Appel accueilli avec ddpens,

ABBOTT et RITCHIE itant dissidents.

Procureurs du demandeur, appelant: Walsh, Micay & Company, Winnipeg.

Procureur de la ddfenderesse, intimde: D. S. Maxwell, Ottawa.

Les Parents Adoptifs Eventuels et The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa

Appelants;

et

Sylvia Elaine Mugford

Intimde.

1969: les 6 et 7 novembre; 1969: le 17 novembre. Pr6sents: Le Juge en Chef Cartwright et les Juges Fauteux, Abbott, Martland, Judson, Ritchie, Hall, Spence et Pigeon.

APPEL D'APPEL L'ONTARIO Enfants-Tutelle de la Couronne-Demande par la mere naturelle pour obtenir la garde de son enfant -Rejet de la demande par le juge de la Cour de la famille et des jeunes dilinquants fondi sur une interprdtation erronde de l'art. 35(3) de la Loi The Child Welfare Act, 1965 (Ont.), c. 14.

APPEL d'un jugement de la Cour d'appel de 'Ontario', rejetant un appel de la Children's Aid Society of Ottawa & l'encontre d'une ordonnance du Juge Honeywell de la Cour de comtd, qui avait accueilli un appel de I'intimde, la mere 2[19701 1 O.R. 9 D.L.R.

262PRSCiEADTVEPENSVMUFR

MatadJ

1O]SC. mother from an order dismissing respondent's application for custody of a child. Appeal dismissed.

Aid Society of Ottawa.

MARTLAND J.-This is an appeal by the prospective adoptive parents of the infant, David

John Mugford, and the Children's Aid Society of Ottawa from the unanimous decision of the

Court of Appeal for Ontario', dismissing an appeal by the Children's Aid Society of Ottawa from an order pronounced by His Honour, Judge

Honeywell, who allowed the respondent's appeal from an order made by His Honour, Judge

Good, dismissing the respondent's application for production and delivery to her of the said infant.

In my opinion, the judgment of the Court of

Appeal ought not to be disturbed. While recognizing that the learned Juvenile and Family Court

Judge who first heard the respondent's application had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses before reaching his conclusion, it is my opinion that his conclusions were based upon a misapprehension as to the meaning of s. 35(3)

of The Child Welfare Act, 1965 (Ont.), c. 14, as applied to the circumstances of this case, and that that subsection was properly applied by

Judge Honeywell and by the Court of Appeal.

I would dismiss the appeal. The infant should be restored to the custody of the respondent, as directed by the order of His Honour, Judge

Honeywell, within fifteen days from the date of this judgment. The respondent should have the costs of this appeal as against the appellant, the

Children's Aid Society of Ottawa. There should be no costs payable by or to the other appellants.

1 9 D.L.R.

naturelle, h 1'encontre d'une ordonnance rejetant sa demande pour obtenir la garde de son enfant. Appel rejet6.

P. I. Brunner, pour les appelants, les Parents Adoptifs tventuels.

J. B. Chadwick, pour l'appelante, the Children's Aid Society of Ottawa.

J.

Le jugement de la Cour a 6t6 rendu par LE MARTLAND-Le pr6sent pourvoi est form6 par les parents adoptifs 6ventuels de l'enfant David John Mugford et la Children's Aid Society of Ottawa h l'encontre d'une d6cision unanime de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario', rejetant 1'appel de la Children's Aid Society of Ottawa h l'encontre d'une ordonnance du Juge Honeywell. Cette dernibre ordonnance accueillait l'appel de 'intim6e A l'encontre d'une ordonnance du Juge Good rejetant sa demande qu'on lui amine et remette 1'enfant.

A mon avis, il ne faut pas modifier le jugement de la Cour d'appel. Bien que j'admette que le savant Juge de la Cour de la famille et des jeunes d6linquants qui a d'abord entendu la demande de l'intim6e a eu l'avantage de voir et d'entendre les t6moins avant de rendre sa d6cision, je suis d'avis que cette d6cision est fond6e sur une interpr6tation erronde de l'art. 35(3) de la loi intitul6e: The Child Welfare Act, 1965 (Ont.), c. 14, dans son application aux circonstances de cette affaire. Je suis 6galement d'avis que le Juge Honeywell et la Cour d'appel ont bien appliqu6 ce paragraphe de 1'article en question.

Je suis d'avis de rejeter le pourvoi. L'enfant devra 6tre rendu A la garde de l'intimbe, comme le veut l'ordonnance de son honneur, le Juge Honeywell, dans les quinze jours de la date du pr6sent jugement. L'intim6e aura droit de recouvrer de

'appelante

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa, les frais du pr6sent pourvoi. Il n'y aura pas de frais adjug6s contre les autres appelants ou en leur faveur.

1 O.R. 9

Martland

[19701 S.C.R.