City of Hamilton v. Canadian Transport Commission, Motorways (Ontario) Ltd. and Soo-Security Motorways Ltd., (1977) 17 N.R. 573 (SCC)
Judge | Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Judson, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson and Beetz, JJ. |
Court | Supreme Court (Canada) |
Case Date | September 30, 1977 |
Jurisdiction | Canada (Federal) |
Citations | (1977), 17 N.R. 573 (SCC);[1978] 1 SCR 640;1977 CanLII 28 (SCC) |
Hamilton v. Cdn. Transport Comm. (1977), 17 N.R. 573 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
City of Hamilton v. Canadian Transport Commission, Motorways (Ontario) Ltd. and Soo-Security Motorways Ltd.
Indexed As: City of Hamilton v. Canadian Transport Commission, Motorways (Ontario) Ltd. and Soo-Security Motorways Ltd.
Supreme Court of Canada
Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Judson, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson and Beetz, JJ.
September 30, 1977.
Summary:
This case arose out of an application by an interprovincial trucking company for an exemption under the Lord's Day Act so that it could operate its trucking service between Montreal and Vancouver on Sundays. At the hearing before the Canadian Transport Commission the City of Hamilton intervened and offered evidence to show that the granting of the exemption would cause congestion, noise, pollution and would create safety problems. The Canadian Transport Commission excluded the evidence offered by the City of Hamilton because it was not relevant to the issues to be considered in granting the exemption under s. 11(x) of the Lord's Day Act. The Canadian Transport Commission granted the exemption.
On appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal the appeal was dismissed and the decision of the Canadian Transport Commission was affirmed.
On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada the appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal was affirmed. The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the Canadian Transport Commission was not required or authorized under s. 11 to conduct a general inquiry into the impact of the applicant's trucking operations on the citizens of the City of Hamilton.
Administrative Law - Topic 354
The hearing and decision - Nature or extent of the hearing - Restrictions on the hearing resulting from the issues required to be determined - An interprovincial trucking company applied to the Canadian Transport Commission for an exemption pursuant to s. 11(x) of the Lord's Day Act so that it could operate its trucks on Sundays - At the hearing the City of Hamilton intervened and offered evidence to show that the granting of the exemption would cause congestion, noise, pollution and would create safety problems - The Canadian Transport Commission excluded the evidence offered by the City of Hamilton because it was not relevant to the issues to be considered in granting the exemption - The Canadian Transport Commission granted the exemption - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the granting of the exemption - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the Canadian Transport Commission was not required or authorized to conduct a general inquiry into the impact of the trucking operations on the citizens of the City of Hamilton.
Cases Noticed:
Minister of Transportation and Communications for the Province of Ontario v. Canadian Transport Commission, Reimer Express Lines Ltd. and Imperial Roadways Ltd., 7 N.R. 32; [1974] 2 F.C. 164, refd to. [para. 4].
Statutes Noticed:
Lord's Day Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. L-13, sect. 11(x) [para. 1].
Counsel:
G.J. Smith, Q.C. and Bryan Finlay, for the appellant;
C.D. MacLoeb and M.L. Madras, for the respondents;
D.W. Burtnick, for the intervenant Minister of Transport and Communications, Government of Ontario.
This appeal was heard by LASKIN, C.J.C., MARTLAND, JUDSON, RITCHIE, SPENCE, PIGEON, DICKSON and BEETZ, JJ. at Ottawa, Ontario on March 29, 1977.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered by MARTLAND, J. on September 30, 1977.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Table of cases
...Hamilton v. Canadian Transport Commission, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 640 ................ 113 Harder v. Lindgren, [1950] 1 W.W.R. 833 (Alta. T.D.) ............................... 245, 266 Hardy v. R. (1998), 98 D.T.C. 3358 (T.C.C.) ...............................................283, 284 Hart v. R......
-
Constitutional Fundamentals
...School v. Quebec (Attorney General) , 2015 SCC 12. 109 Above note 57 at 325–27. See also Hamilton v. Canadian Transport Commission, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 640. Cf. R . v. Drybones , [1970] S.C.R. 282, Cartwright C.J. dissenting. 110 Above note 57 at 333. RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND THE LAW IN CANAD......
-
R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., (1985) 60 A.R. 161 (SCC)
...64]. Lieberman v. The Queen, [1963] S.C.R. 643, refd. to [para. 71]. City of Hamilton v. Canadian Transport Commission and others, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 640; 17 N.R. 573, consd. [para. McGowan v. Maryland (1961), 366 U.S. 420, dist. [para. 73]. Braunfeld v. Brown (1961), 366 U.S. 599, dist. [para......
-
R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., (1985) 58 N.R. 81 (SCC)
...64]. Lieberman v. The Queen, [1963] S.C.R. 643, refd. to [para. 71]. City of Hamilton v. Canadian Transport Commission and others, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 640; 17 N.R. 573, consd. [para. McGowan v. Maryland (1961), 366 U.S. 420, dist. [para. 73]. Braunfeld v. Brown (1961), 366 U.S. 599, dist. [para......
-
R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., (1985) 60 A.R. 161 (SCC)
...64]. Lieberman v. The Queen, [1963] S.C.R. 643, refd. to [para. 71]. City of Hamilton v. Canadian Transport Commission and others, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 640; 17 N.R. 573, consd. [para. McGowan v. Maryland (1961), 366 U.S. 420, dist. [para. 73]. Braunfeld v. Brown (1961), 366 U.S. 599, dist. [para......
-
R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., (1985) 58 N.R. 81 (SCC)
...64]. Lieberman v. The Queen, [1963] S.C.R. 643, refd. to [para. 71]. City of Hamilton v. Canadian Transport Commission and others, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 640; 17 N.R. 573, consd. [para. McGowan v. Maryland (1961), 366 U.S. 420, dist. [para. 73]. Braunfeld v. Brown (1961), 366 U.S. 599, dist. [para......
-
R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd. and Attorney General of Canada, Seventh Day Adventist Church in Canada and London Drugs Ltd., (1983) 49 A.R. 194 (CA)
...Queen, [1963] S.C.R. 651, consd. [paras. 10, 26, 37, 45, 50, 51, 53, 57, 100-102]. City of Hamilton v. Canadian Transport Commission, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 640; 17 N.R. 573, consd. [paras. 10-14]. R. v. Boardwalk Merchandise Mart Ltd., [1972] 6 W.W.R. 1, revsd. [1973] 1 W.W.R. 190, refd to. [para......
-
Table of cases
...Hamilton v. Canadian Transport Commission, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 640 ................ 113 Harder v. Lindgren, [1950] 1 W.W.R. 833 (Alta. T.D.) ............................... 245, 266 Hardy v. R. (1998), 98 D.T.C. 3358 (T.C.C.) ...............................................283, 284 Hart v. R......
-
Constitutional Fundamentals
...School v. Quebec (Attorney General) , 2015 SCC 12. 109 Above note 57 at 325–27. See also Hamilton v. Canadian Transport Commission, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 640. Cf. R . v. Drybones , [1970] S.C.R. 282, Cartwright C.J. dissenting. 110 Above note 57 at 333. RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND THE LAW IN CANAD......