Ot
(DEFENDANTS).......
*Nov. 6.
AND
MARIE ROY (PLAINTIFF)..............RESPONDENT. ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH, ArPEAL SIDE, PROVINCE OF QUEBEC.
Per Taschereau and Girouard JJ.-The provisions of the one hundred and fourteenth section of "The Railway Act" confer upon railway companies a servitude consisting merely in the right of passage and do not confer any right to expropriate lands requirdl for laying the tracks of a tramway for the transportation of materials to be used for the purposes of construction.
APPEAL from the judgment of the Court of King's Bench, appeal side, reversing the judgment of the Superior Court, District of Quebec, by which the plaintiffs action had been dismissed with costs. The appellants, contractors for the construction of the Quebec bridge over the River St. Lawrence, brought materials for its construction from a distance and deposited them on a wharf near the bridge-site, and then built a tramway across the respondent's land for the transportation of the materials from the wharf to the works.
Upon the institution of a possessory action against him, the appellants, assuming to act *PRESENT:-Sir Henry Strong C.J. and Taschereau, Sedgewick, Girouard, Davies and Mills JJ.
either under their charter, the Acts, chap. 98 of the Statutes of Canada of 50 & 51 Vict. and chap..69 of 60 & 61 Vict., (D.) or under sections 113 and 114 of "The Railway Act", 51 Vict. chap. 29 (D.), caused a Roy. notice of expropriation to be served on the respondent. Thereupon the respondent instituted the present action en complainte by which she also asked for a declaration that the appellants had no right to expropriate her said lands, and that the notice of expropriation should be declared null and void.
The learned judge (Routhier J.) at the trial, considering that the company had power under sections 113, 114 and 146 of " The Railway Act " to give the moyens of expropriation and take possession of the strip of land occupied by the tramway, dismissed the plaintiffs action.
This judgment was reversed by the judgment now under appeal which contains, as reasons formally expressed, the following considdrants: " Consid6rant que, soit en vertu de sa charte, (50-51 Vict Canada, chap. 98 et 60-61 Vict. Canada, chap 69), soit en vertu de l'acte des chemins de fer du Canada (51 Vict. chap. 29, sections 113 et 114) l'intim6e est, dans 1'espice, non foud6e A proc6der A 1'expropriation du terrain de 1'appelante.
"Consid~rant que i'avis d'expropriation signifi6 A 1'appelante est le commencement de proc~dures en expropriation, qui doivent avoir pour r6sultat de d6poss6der l'appelante de son terrain, nolens volens. " Consid~rant que l'appelante a raison de se plaindre que cette procedure lui cause un trouble s6rieux dans la possession de sa proprit et qu'elle est en cons6quence bien fond6e A faire d&clarer que cette proc~dure est ill6gale et A y mettre fin."
In delivering the reasons for the judgment the Court of King's Bench, Mr. Justice Ouimet said:
"Ces deux sections de 1'acte des chemins de fer ne me paraissent pas avoir 6t6 faites en prevision du cas pr6sent.
Il me semble qu'en adoptant les pr6tentions de l'intim6e, cette cour 6tendrait an delh des limites pr6vues par la loi et m~me du raisonnable, les pouvoirs extraordinaires d'expropriation conf6rs aux compagnies de chemin de fer.
D'apris une pareil interpr6tation, il suffirait que la compagnie on quelqu'un pour elle d6pose des mat6riaux de construction sur un terrain quelconque, disons, sur un quai A Qubbec pour l'autoriser A demander l'expropriation non seulement de ce terrain ou du quai, mais aussi d'un droit de passage sur toutes les propri6ths situ6es entre ce terrain et la ligne du chemin de fer.
Nous sommes d'opinion que ce pouvoir d'expropriation aux terrains avoisinant le chemin de fer et dans lequel la nature a d6pos6 des matdriaux pouvant servir et requis pour la construction et le maintien du chemin."
The company by the present appeal asked for the restoration of the judgment of the trial court.
Alexandre Taschereau for the appellants.
L. P. Pelletier K.C. for the respondent.
In the absence of the Chief Justice Mr. Justice Taschereau pronounced the judgment of the court dismissing the appeal with costs for the reasons given by the court below.
The following remarks were added by:
J.-Je suis d'avis de renvoyer cet appel pour la raison qu'en supposant que la compagnie ait un droit quelconque d'expropriation sur le terrain en question, sans en rien decider, ce droit ne peut consister, d'apr~s la section 114 de l'Acte des Chemins de Fer de 1888, qu'en un droit de passage, une servitude,
Statutes and regulations cited
-
Unresolved citations
- sections 113
- 114
- 146
- section 114