Judgments

Decision Information

Decision Content

T-4481-75
Robert W. Blanchette, Richard C. Bond and John H. McArthur all in their capacity as Trustees of the Property of Penn Central Transportation Company; Norfolk and Western Railway Com pany; Thomas F. Patton and Ralph S. Tyler, Jr. both in their capacity as Trustees of the Property of Erie Lackawanna Railway Company; Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Company and Missouri Pacific Railroad Company (Plaintiffs)
v.
Canadian National Railway Company; Grand Trunk Western Railroad Company; Central Ver- mont Railway Inc. and Canadian Pacific Limited (Defendants)
Trial Division, Marceau J.—Montreal, November 8; Ottawa, December 10, 1976.
Jurisdiction Contract Motion to strike statement of claim for want of jurisdiction Application of s. 23 of Federal Court Act Whether Quebec North Shore Paper case distinguishable Effect of binding provisions of Railway Act Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1970 (2nd Supp.), c. 10, s. 23 Railway Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. R-2, ss. 94(1) and 265.
Plaintiffs are suing for money owed under a contract with the defendants involving works and undertakings extending beyond the limits of a province, which relief, they claim, flows from the provisions of the Railway Act.
Held, the application to strike is granted. Although the contract concerns works and undertakings extending beyond the limits of a province, the provisions of the Railway Act cited do not create a cause of action. Although sections 94(1) and 265 of the Railway Act prescribe the legal relationships be tween the parties to this action, it cannot be inferred from the judgment in the Quebec North Shore Paper case that the case at bar can be excluded from the principle stated therein.
Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Quebec North Shore Paper Co. (1976) 9 N.R. 471, applied.
MOTION to strike statement of claim. COUNSEL:
D. H. Tingley for plaintiffs.
P. Sevigny-McConomy for Canadian Nation
al Railway Company.
M. S. Bistrisky for Canadian Pacific Limited.
SOLICITORS:
Lafleur & Brown, Montreal, for plaintiffs.