Digests

Decision Information

Decision Content

RAILWAYS

Windsor (City) v. Canadian Pacific Railway Co.

A-649-98

Evans J.A.

26/9/00

6 pp.

Appeal from a decision by Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) declining to intervene in dispute between parties--Whether CTA retains authority to enforce orders against railway company respecting maintenance of bridges previously used in connection with railway line, after company has validly abandoned railway line--Dispute between City of Windsor and Canadian Pacific Railway (CP)--City claiming CP has ongoing responsibility to contribute to maintenance of two road bridges crossing land formerly owned by CP, to restore level crossings bridges had replaced--CTA finding, because CP no longer used track as part of main or branch line, it was "trackage auxiliary to a line of railway" within meaning of National Transportation Act, 1987, s. 159(2)--Accordingly, CTA had no authority to consider former orders made, or to require either CP, or current land owners, Shergar Developments Inc., to maintain bridges or restore level crossings--City must be able to establish CTA had legal authority to issue orders to CP with respect to bridges--Constitutional authority of CTA over bridges depending on their being integral to railways extending beyond limits of Province within meaning of Constitution Act, 1867, s. 92(10)(a)--If no such railway exists, CTA has no power to make orders, to give effect to previous orders, with respect to them--Railway company not subject to federal regulatory authority in respect of business activities separate from operation of interprovincial railway, otherwise within provincial jurisdiction--Present dispute exclusively within provincial jurisdiction--CTA correct to decline to intervene in dispute--Appeal dismissed--National Transportation Act, 1987, R.S.C., 1985 (3rd Supp.), c. 28, s. 159(2)--Constitution Act, 1867, 30 & 31 Vict., c. 3 (U.K.) (as am. by Canada Act 1982, 1982, c. 11 (U.K.), Schedule to the Constitution Act, 1982, Item 1) [R.S.C., 1985, Appendix II, No. 5], s. 92(10)(a).

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.