A-538-79
Lomer Rivard (Appellant)
v.
The Queen (Respondent)
Court of Appeal, Pratte J., Hyde and Lalande
D.JJ.—Montreal, December 18, 1980.
Crown — Torts — Appeal from Trial Division decision
dismissing appellant's claim relating to damage caused to his
property by movement of vessels — Whether Crown liable as a
result of failure by federal authorities to appropriately regu
late navigation in navigable waterways — Appeal dismissed —
Subs. 3(1) of the Crown Liability Act not applicable — No
evidence of tort committed by servant of the Crown and thus
no basis for such action against servant (par. 3(1)(a) and subs.
4(2) of the Act) — No evidence that Crown failed in duty
referred to in par. 3(1)(b) of the Act — Crown Liability Act,
R.S.C. 1970, c. C-38, ss. 3(1), 4(2).
APPEAL.
COUNSEL:
Lomer Rivard for himself.
J. C. Ruelland, Q. C. for respondent.
SOLICITORS:
H. Bélanger, Montreal, for appellant.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for
respondent.
The following is the English version of the
reasons for judgment of the Court delivered orally
by
PRATTE J.: It will not be necessary to hear you,
Mr. Ruelland.
Appellant alleged, first, that the Trial Division
[[1979] 2 F.C. 345] dismissed the part of his claim
relating to the damage which he says was caused
to his property by the swift movement of large
vessels in the St. Lawrence River at the time of the
spring thaw. In our view, the only problem that
arises in this part of the appeal is as to whether the
Crown may be liable as a result of failure by the
federal authorities to appropriately regulate navi
gation in navigable waterways. Appellant main
tains that these authorities not only have a power
but a duty to regulate navigation in such a way
that it does not cause damage to properties located
along navigable waterways. In appellant's submis
sion, a limit should have been placed on the ton
nage and speed of vessels using the river alongside
his property so as to ensure that the latter was not
damaged by the waves produced by such vessels.
In our opinion, this first argument of appellant
must be rejected. The tortious liability of the
Crown in right of Canada is only implicated in
cases specified by the Crown Liability Act, R.S.C.
1970, c. C-38, subsection 3(1) of which is the only
subsection which might apply in the case at bar. It
seems clear to the Court that this is not one of the
cases provided for in that subsection. The evidence
does not establish that a servant of the Crown
committed a tort that might be the basis for an
action in tort against himself (paragraph 3(1)(a)
and subsection 4(2)); nor does it disclose that the
Crown failed in any "duty attaching to the owner
ship, occupation, possession or control of property"
referred to in paragraph 3(1)(b).
Appellant also complained that the Trial Judge
placed too low a value on the damage caused him
by the negligence of servants of the Crown in
building works intended to protect property locat
ed along the river at Lanoraie. He argued that this
amount should be increased. This second argument
must also be rejected. In the opinion of the Court
the amount awarded by the Trial Judge is not very
high; but we do not think it is so low as to justify
our intervention.
The appeal will accordingly be dismissed with
costs.
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.