Herrenknecht Tunnelling Systems USA Inc. et al. v. Canadian Pacific Railway Co. et al., (2002) 224 F.T.R. 74 (TD)

• Judge: Gibson, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: September 23, 2002
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2002), 224 F.T.R. 74 (TD)

Herrenknecht Tunnelling v. CPR (2002), 224 F.T.R. 74 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2002] F.T.R. TBEd. OC.052

Herrenknecht Tunnelling Systems USA Inc. and Danzas Inc. doing business as Danzas AEI Intercontinental (previously Danzas (Canada) Ltd.) (applicants/plaintiffs) v. Canadian Pacific Railway Company, Canadian Pacific Railway Limited and RaiLink Canada Ltd. (respondents/defendants)

(T-2216-01; 2002 FCT 1089)

Indexed As: Herrenknecht Tunnelling Systems USA Inc. et al. v. Canadian Pacific Railway Co. et al.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Gibson, J.

October 21, 2002.

Summary:

The plaintiffs arranged with CPR for shipment by rail of a tunnel boring machine from Quebec to Washington. The CPR train transporting the machine derailed while travelling on the Ottawa Valley RaiLink railway line, which was leased and operated by RaiLink Canada Ltd. The plaintiffs brought an action against CPR and RaiLink pursuant to s. 116(5) of the Canada Transportation Act for breach of the duty imposed on railway companies by s. 113(1)(c) of that Act. The plaintiffs brought a motion for a determination that the court had jurisdiction to entertain the action.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, determined that it had jurisdiction to entertain the action against the defendants under s. 23 of the Federal Court Act, ss. 113(1) and 116(5) of the Canada Transportation Act and head 10(a) in s. 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

Constitutional Law - Topic 6642

Federal jurisdiction (s. 91) - Interprovincial works and undertakings - Transportation (incl. railways) - [See Courts - Topic 4038.2 ].

Courts - Topic 4038.2

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Interprovincial works and undertakings - The plaintiffs arranged with CPR for shipment by rail of a tunnel boring machine from Quebec to Washington - The CPR train transporting the machine derailed on the Ottawa Valley RaiLink railway line, which was leased and operated by RaiLink - The plaintiffs brought an action against CPR and RaiLink pursuant to s. 116(5) of the Canada Transportation Act for breach of the duty imposed on railway companies by s. 113(1)(c) of that Act - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the action under s. 23 of the Federal Court Act, ss. 113(1) and 116(5) of the Canada Transportation Act and head 10(a) in s. 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867 - Section 23(c) of the Federal Court Act constituted a statutory grant of jurisdiction to the court by the Federal Parliament where a remedy was sought under an Act of parliament or otherwise in relation to interprovincial works and undertakings - The Canada Transportation Act constituted a body of Federal law, essential to the disposition of the action, which nourished the statutory grant of jurisdiction - The jurisdiction vested in the court by s. 23(c) was not "otherwise specially assigned".

Courts - Topic 4045

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Exclusions - Jurisdiction specially assigned - [See Courts - Topic 4038.2 ].

Railways - Topic 1003

Regulation - National Transportation Act (now Canada Transportation Act) - General - [See Courts - Topic 4038.2 ].

Cases Noticed:

Miida Electronics Inc. v. Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd. and ITO-International Terminal Operators Ltd., [1986] 1 S.C.R. 752; 68 N.R. 241, appld. [para. 20, footnote 5].

Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Canadian Liberty Net et al., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 626; 224 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 21, footnote 6].

Bensol Customs Brokers Ltd. v. Air Canada, [1979] 2 F.C. 575 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 22, footnote 7].

Watt & Scott Inc. v. Chantry Shipping S.A. et al., [1988] 1 F.C. 537; 11 F.T.R. 242 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 27, footnote 8].

Kiist and Robertson v. Canadian Pacific Railway Co. et al., [1982] 1 F.C. 361; 37 N.R. 91 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 33, footnote 10].

Consolidated Distilleries Ltd. v. Consolidated Exporters Corp., [1930] S.C.R. 531, refd to. [para. 36, footnote 11].

Quebec North Shore Paper Co. v. Canadian Pacific Ltd., [1977] 2 S.C.R. 1054; 9 N.R. 471, refd to. [para. 36, footnote 12].

Statutes Noticed:

Canada Transportation Act, S.C. 1996, c. 10, sect. 113(1), sect. 116(5) [para. 18].

Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 92(10)(a) [para. 19].

Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 23(c) [para. 16].

Counsel:

Todd R. Davies and Matthew Heemskerk, for the plaintiff.

Solicitors of Record:

Alexander Holburn Beaudin & Lang, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the plaintiff;

Whitelaw Twining, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the defendant, RaiLink Canada Ltd.;

Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the defendants, Canadian Pacific Railway Company and Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd.

This motion was heard on September 23, 2002, at Vancouver, British Columbia, before Gibson, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following decision on October 21, 2002.