Canada (Attorney General) v. Canadian Pacific Ltd., [2000] B.C.T.C. 397 (SC)

• Judge: Saunders, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
• Case Date: June 15, 2000
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: [2000] B.C.T.C. 397 (SC);2000 BCSC 933

Can. (A.G.) v. Cdn. Pacific Ltd., [2000] B.C.T.C. 397 (SC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] B.C.T.C. TBEd. JL.013

The Attorney General of Canada on behalf of Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada (plaintiff) v. Canadian Pacific Limited (defendant) (C893387)

Joe Mathias, on his own behalf and on behalf of the members of the Squamish Indian Band, and the Squamish Indian Band (plaintiffs) v. Canadian Pacific Limited and The Attorney General of Canada on behalf of Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada (defendants) and Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada (third party) (C895677)

Chief Wendy A. Grant, Joseph R. Becker, Ernest Campbell, Mary Charles, Joanna Crawford, A. George Guerin, Marilyn Point, N. Rose Point, Susan Point, Leona M. Sparrow, the elected councillors of the Musqueam Indian Band, suing on their own behalf and on behalf of all other members of the Musqueam Indian Band (plaintiffs) v. Canadian Pacific Limited and The Attorney General of Canada on behalf of Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada (defendants) and Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada (third party)

(A923301)

Leonard George, as Chief, Matthew Thomas, Joe Thomas and Carleen Thomas as councillors on their own behalf and on behalf of the members of the Burrard Indian Band and the said Burrard Indian Band (plaintiffs) v. Canadian Pacific Limited and The Attorney General of Canada on behalf of Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada (defendants) and Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada (third party)

(C931808; 2000 BCSC 933)

Indexed As: Canada (Attorney General) v. Canadian Pacific Ltd.

British Columbia Supreme Court

Vancouver

Saunders, J.

June 15, 2000.

Summary:

At issue was ownership of two parcels of railway lands (10 acres; Lot J and Block I) in Vancouver, particularly the scope of interest or title that Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) acquired. The lands were formerly part of an Indian reserve and were entered in 1886 and 1900 for purposes of railway construction. CPR claimed absolute title on the basis of Grants of Letters Patent (1902 and 1928) issued by the federal Crown, the terms of the Special Act incorporating the CPR (and the CPR Contract, which was ratified by the 1881 Act and annexed to it as a schedule) and its long holding of the lands after construction of rail lines. The federal Crown claimed title on the basis that the CPR did not get absolute title to the lands; CPR's interest ceased when CPR stopped using the lands for railway purposes. Three Indian bands claimed that the lands reverted to the federal Crown for Indian use.

The British Columbia Supreme Court held that Lot J and part of Block I reverted to the federal Crown. The balance of Block I would revert to the federal Crown once rail traffic ceased. Both parcels were to be held for the use and benefit of one the Indian bands, which was yet to be determined in other proceedings. CPR did not acquire absolute title to Lot J under the CPR Contract or the CPR Act. Lot J, not vested with the federal Crown, was acquired under s. 189 of the 1927 Railway Act, which carried with it a restriction on alienability. Likewise, Block I was not acquired under the CPR Act. Alternatively, the Letters Patent granted for Block I were not granted under authority of the CPR Act. The court rejected the CPR submission that the federal Crown was estopped from denying CPR's claim to title. While a person who later acquired an interest in land which he earlier transferred while lacking capacity to do so was generally estopped from denying the grantee's title, there could be no estoppel in the face of an express statutory provision. An estoppel could not legitimize what was otherwise contrary to statute. Additionally, although the early Indian Acts permitted railways to pass through reserves, those provisions did not permit the acquisition of absolute, indefeasible title in the absence of a surrender under the Indian Act. Since the two parcels were never surrendered, CPR could not have obtained absolute indefeasible title by the grant of the Letters Patent. CPR could also not rely on certificates of indefeasible title issued under the 1921 Land Registration Act and the 1960 Land Registry Act. Those Acts did not protect CPR. They protected only persons acquiring title on the faith of the register. Both parcels were not considered "reserve" lands as long as they were "held" by CPR. Once no longer "held" by CPR, reserve status was revived (i.e., the federal Crown did not hold the parcels for its own benefit). Alternatively, the federal Crown held the parcels in trust for one of the Indian bands on the basis of a resulting or constructive trust.

Crown - Topic 1004

Contracts with Crown - General principles - Statutory confirmation of contracts - See paragraphs 1 to 259.

Estoppel - Topic 1394

Estoppel in pais (by conduct) - Circumstances where doctrine not applicable - To defeat positive statutory obligation or contravene public policy - See paragraphs 175 to 178.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 821

Personal or legal rights - Property exempt from alienation - General - See paragraphs 1 to 259.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 5402

Lands - General - Disposition of Indian lands - See paragraphs 1 to 259.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 5464

Lands - Surrender of lands - What constitutes a surrender - See paragraphs 1 to 259.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 5505

Lands - Reserves - Title - See paragraphs 1 to 259.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 5509.1

Lands - Reserves - Status of railway lines - See paragraphs 1 to 259.

Railways - Topic 10

General principles - General - Nature or scope of title acquired - See paragraphs 1 to 259.

Railways - Topic 1143

Regulation - Abandonment of lines or discontinuance of service - Evidence - See paragraphs 1 to 259.

Real Property - Topic 245

General principles - Restrictions on alienation - Statutory - Effect of - See paragraphs 1 to 259.

Real Property - Topic 405

Estates in fee simple - General - Fee simple vs. fee simple determinable - See paragraphs 1 to 259.

Real Property - Topic 8024

Title - Registration of instruments, etc. - Land titles system - Certificate of title - Reliance on issue of - See paragraphs 1 to 259.

Statutes - Topic 1864

Interpretation - Intrinsic aids - Schedules, appendices and forms - Effect of - Whether schedule, etc., part of text of law - See paragraphs 1 to 259.

Trusts - Topic 1901

Resulting trusts - General principles - General (incl. when available) - See paragraphs 1 to 259.

Trusts - Topic 2346

Constructive trusts - Basis for imposition - Unjust enrichment - See paragraphs 1 to 259.

Cases Noticed:

Osoyoos Indian Band v. Oliver (Town) et al. (1999), 122 B.C.A.C. 220; 200 W.A.C. 220; 172 D.L.R.(5th) 589 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Vancouver (City) v. Canadian Pacific Railway Co. (1894), 23 S.C.R. 1, refd to. [para. 32].

Canadian Pacific Railway Co. Act, Re (1905), 36 S.C.R. 42, refd to. [para. 33].

British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 41; 166 N.R. 81; 44 B.C.A.C. 1; 71 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 50].

Mitchell and Milton Management Ltd. v. Peguis Indian Band et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 85; 110 N.R. 241; 67 Man.R.(2d) 81, refd to. [para. 57].

Guerin v. Canada, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335; 55 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 59].

Opetchesaht Indian Band et al. v. Canada et al., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 119; 211 N.R. 241; 90 B.C.A.C. 1; 147 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 60].

Kruger v. Canada (1985), 58 N.R. 241; 17 D.L.R.(4th) 591 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 60].

Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Major (1886), 13 S.C.R. 233, refd to. [para. 83].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Canadian Pacific Ltd., [1986] B.C.J. No. 407 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 134].

Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Matsqui Indian Band et al. (1999), 243 N.R. 202; 176 D.L.R.(4th) 35 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 135].

Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Paul et al., [1988] 2 S.C.R. 654; 89 N.R. 325; 91 N.B.R.(2d) 43; 232 A.P.R. 43, refd to. [para. 136].

British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Canadian Pacific Railway Co., [1906] A.C. 205 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 146].

Delgamuukw et al. v. British Columbia et al., [1993] 5 W.W.R. 97; 30 B.C.A.C. 1; 49 W.A.C. 1 (C.A.), revd. [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010; 220 N.R. 161; 99 B.C.A.C. 161; 162 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 148].

Masters v. Madison County Mutual Insurance Co. (1852), 11 Barb. 624, refd to. [para. 154].

Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Saskatchewan (Attorney General), [1951] S.C.R. 190, affd. [1953] A.C. 594 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 155].

Rajapaske v. Fernando, [1920] A.C. 892 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 175].

Evernden v. Neuman (1958), 17 D.L.R.(2d) 491 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 175].

Reference Re Certain Titles to Land in Ontario (1973), 35 D.L.R.(3d) 10 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 175].

Kapoor Sawmills Ltd. v. Deliko (1940), 56 B.C.R. 433 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 175].

St. Ann's Island Shooting & Fishing Club Ltd. v. Canada, [1950] S.C.R. 211, refd to. [para. 176].

Smith v. Smith (1884), 5 O.R. 690 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 178].

Doe dem Miller v. Tiffany (1848), 5 U.C.Q.B. 79, refd to. [para. 178].

North Pacific Lumber Co. v. British American Trust Co. (1915), 23 B.C.R. 332 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 178].

Manitoba Language Rights Reference, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 721; 59 N.R. 321; 35 Man.R.(2d) 83, refd to. [para. 179].

Saskatchewan Land & Homestead Co. v. Calgary and Edmonton Railway Co. (1913), 14 D.L.R. 139 (Alta. S.C.), affd. (1915), 51 S.C.R. 1, refd to. [para. 188].

Belfast Corp. v. O.D. Cars Ltd., [1960] 1 All E.R. 65 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 188].

Manitoba Fisheries Ltd. v. Canada, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 101; 23 N.R. 159, refd to. [para. 188].

Tener and Tener v. British Columbia, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 533; 59 N.R. 82, refd to. [para. 188].

Nowegijick v. Minister of National Revenue et al., [1983] 1 S.C.R. 29; 46 N.R. 41, refd to. [para. 188].

St. Catherine's Milling and Lumber Co. v. Canada (1888), 14 A.C. 46 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 189].

Ontario Mining Co. v. Seybold, [1903] A.C. 73 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 189].

Canada v. Smith and Ontario (Attorney General) et al., [1983] 1 S.C.R. 554; 47 N.R. 132, refd to. [para. 189].

Surrey (City) v. Peace Arch Enterprises Ltd. (1970), 74 W.W.R.(N.S.) 380 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 189].

Kaup v. Imperial Oil Ltd., [1962] S.C.R. 170, refd to. [para. 196].

Minchau v. Busse, [1940] 2 D.L.R. 282 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 196].

Landstrom Developments Ltd. v. Passburg Petroleums Ltd. (1984), 53 A.R. 96; 30 Alta. L.R.(2d) 379 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 196].

Gibbs v. Messer, [1891] A.C. 248 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 196].

Pacific Savings & Mortgage Corp. v. Can-Corp. Development Ltd. (1982), 135 D.L.R.(3d) 623 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 196].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Canadian Pacific Railway Co. et al., [1958] S.C.R. 285, refd to. [para. 198].

Metropolitan Railway Co. v. Fowler, [1893] A.C. 416 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 215].

St. Mary's Indian Band et al. v. Cranbrook (City), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 657; 213 N.R. 290; 92 B.C.A.C. 161; 150 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 216].

Giffen (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 91; 222 N.R. 29; 101 B.C.A.C. 161; 164 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 228].

Peter v. Beblow, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 980; 150 N.R. 1; 23 B.C.A.C. 81; 39 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 231].

Semiahmoo Indian Band et al. v. Canada (1997), 215 N.R .241; 148 D.L.R.(4th) 523 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 232].

Rio Grande Western Railway Co. v. Stringham (1915), 239 U.S. 44 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 252].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Pacific Railway Act, S.C. 1881, c. 1, sect. 1 [para. 141]; sect. 5 [para. 41]; Schedule, Canadian Pacific Railway Contract, art. 1 [para. 165]; art. 7 [para. 42]; art. 10 [para. 37]; art. 12 [para. 39]; art. 14 [para. 38]; art. 15 [para. 167]; art. 17 [para. 48]; art. 22 [para. 47].

Canadian Pacific Railway Contract - See Canadian Pacific Railway Act, Schedule.

Consolidated Railway Act, S.C. 1879, c. 9, sect. 2(2) [para. 26]; sect. 7(3) [para. 44]; sect. 37 [para. 56].

Indian Act, S.C. 1880, c. 3, sect. 31 [para. 61]; sect. 36 [para. 58].

Indian Act, S.C. 1886, c. 43, sect. 35 [para. 62]; sect. 38 [para. 183].

Indian Act, S.C. 1927, c. 98, sect. 2(j) [para. 205]; sect. 48 [para. 64].

Railway Act, S.C. 1988, c. 29, sect. 99 [para. 47]; sect. 101 [para. 67].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Megarry, R.E., and Wade, H.W.R., The Law of Real Property (3rd Ed. 1966), p. 79 [para. 154].

Wade, W., and Forsythe, C., Administrative Law (7th Ed. 1994), p. 270 [para. 178].

Waters, D.W.M., Law of Trusts in Canada (2nd Ed. 1984), p. 299 [para. 228].

Counsel:

D.G. Cowper, K.F. Burdak and R.S. Whittaker, for the plaintiff, Attorney General of Canada;

J.R. Rich, C.C. Stein, F.M. Kirchner and B. Lehman, for the plaintiff, Squamish Indian Band;

M. MacLean and C.S. Metallic, for the plaintiff, Musqueam Indian Band;

S. Ashcroft and C.H. Sweet, for the plaintiff, Burrard Indian Band;

J.E. Gouge, Q.C., and A.M. Dobson-Mack, for the defendant, Canadian Pacific Ltd.

This case was heard on June 14-18, 21-23, 25, 28 and July 5-9, 1999, at Vancouver, B.C., before Saunders, J., of the British Columbia Supreme Court, who delivered the following judgment on June 15, 2000.

Please note: The following judgment has not been edited.