29:
291:
There is no danger of indeterminate liability, and thus no policy reason to deny recoverability, when the defendant actually knows or ought to know of a specific individual or individuals, as opposed to a general or unascertained class of the public, who is or are likely to suffer a foreseeable kind
305:
He questioned the applicability of tort compensation in such cases and wrote that "it is legitimate to consider which party is the better loss bearer in this type of case." He found that "a denial of recovery in this case is justified in light of C.N.'s overwhelmingly superior risk bearing capacity
274:
test, she rejected three broad policy arguments advanced by the defendant: (1) the insurance argument was questionable because it assumes that victims are better suited to insure themselves than tortfeasors, (2) the loss-spreading justification is inadequate because it does not justify cases where
309:
In addition, LaForest J. argued that McLachlin's approach would create uncertainty in the law, as the plaintiffs could be an indeterminately large class and there is no way for the defendant to know who might be affected by damage caused by their tugboats. Under McLachlin's approach, both parties
278:
Applying the law to the case, McLachlin found that CN was sufficiently close to Norsk as well as the property in question. She noted that the relationship between CN and PWC was such that the bridge could be considered a "joint" or "common venture" under which recovery for economic loss had been
237:
The railways sued the tug owners and operators for the additional cost incurred as a result of the closure of the bridge. The tug owners claimed that there was no right to recover, as CN was not the owner of the bridge and suffered no direct physical or property damage. Their losses were purely
266:
test, she held that there must be sufficient proximity between the parties in addition to the damage being foreseeable. In the context of contractual relational economic loss, there must be a close examination of the facts to determine if there is sufficient closeness, including "physical
301:
LaForest J. held that no duty of care arises unless the case falls within narrow exceptional categories, which does not include the case at hand. He would have upheld the traditional bright line rule excluding recovery for economic loss caused by damage to third party property.
331:, 3 SCR 1210, McLachlin clarified the result, affirming that recovery for contractual relational economic loss is the exception rather than the norm. There is a presumption against contractual relational economic loss, subject to recognized exceptional categories:
275:
there is only one victim, and (3) the contractual allocation of risk argument was rejected because it assumes that all businesses efficiently allocate risk and have equal bargaining power, and overlooks the concept of fault in determining liability.
91:
Pure economic loss is compensable when it falls under the category of relational economic loss. The plaintiff's contractual relationship with the property owner whose property has been damaged can be sufficient to hold the defendant tortfeasor
233:
After the accident, it took several weeks to repair the bridge, during which time CN and other railways were forced to re-route traffic. This increased the cost of operations and reduced the freight capacity during that time.
351:, 2 SCR 860, the court summed up the state of the law, partially endorsing LaForest's judgment with regards to the categories of cases that can potentially give rise to compensable economic loss. These five categories were:
199:. The court recognized situations in which pure economic loss is compensable. In particular, the court held that relational economic loss falls within the category of losses that are sufficiently proximate to give rise to a
287:
Stevenson J., writing for himself, concurred with McLachlin J. on the result but did not fully endorse her view on relational economic loss. Mainly focusing on foreseeability, he held that:
388:
211:
A barge being towed in heavy fog by tug Jervis Crown, owned and operated by the Norsk
Pacific Steamship Co. and Norsk Pacific Marine Services Ltd., collided with the
54:
Norsk
Pacific Steamship Company Limited, Norsk Pacific Marine Services Ltd., The Tug Jervis Crown and Francis MacDonnell v. Canadian National Railway Company
327:
230:
The tug owners were familiar with the area and were at all times aware that the bridge was mainly used by CN and was essential to their operations.
466:
481:
476:
432:
224:
491:
471:
223:(PWC). The bridge is the sole direct link for several railway companies between the north and south shores of the Fraser in
414:
246:
McLachlin J. (as she then was), joined by L'Heureux-Dubé and Cory JJ., found in favour for the plaintiff CN. Using the
116:
238:
economic (based on lost profits and increased operational costs), which were not generally recoverable in tort law.
255:
496:
486:
216:
136:
347:
408:
400:
188:
34:
371:
These categories are not closed but will be approached on a case-by-case basis based on the rationale from
212:
448:
28:
404:
220:
112:
341:
3. Where the relationship between the claimant and the property owner constitutes a joint venture.
192:
132:
428:
420:
124:
140:
413:"Canadian National Railway Co v Norsk Pacific Steamship Co [1992] 1S.C.R. 1021".
318:
The state of the law on economic loss was unclear immediately following the decision in
335:
1. Where the claimant has a possessory or proprietary interest in the damaged property;
460:
176:
Lamer C.J. and
Gonthier J. took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
105:
60:
200:
120:
259:, she found that Norsk owed a duty of care to CN, making the loss recoverable.
310:
would require insurance at a high cost and thus is not economically efficient.
128:
424:
247:
322:, as neither McLachlin nor LaForest's judgments were the clear majority.
267:
propinquity, assumed or imposed obligations and close causal connection."
196:
219:(CN) was the primary user (86% of total use) of the bridge owned by
215:, which spans the Fraser River between Surrey and New Westminster.
328:
Bow Valley Husky (Bermuda) Ltd. v. Saint John
Shipbuilding Ltd.
355:
The
Independent Liability of Statutory Public Authorities;
184:
Canadian
National Railway Co v Norsk Pacific Steamship Co
22:
Canadian
National Railway Co v Norsk Pacific Steamship Co
81:
Appeal dismissed; CN is entitled to recovery from Norsk
292:
of loss as a result of negligence by that defendant.
389:
List of
Supreme Court of Canada cases (Lamer Court)
167:
159:
155:
McLachlin J., joined by L'Heureux-Dubé and Cory JJ.
151:
146:
96:
85:
77:
69:
59:
49:
42:
21:
171:La Forest J., joined by Sopinka and Iacobucci JJ.
364:Negligent Supply of Shoddy Goods or Structures;
253:as adopted by the Supreme Court of Canada in
8:
338:2. General average contribution cases; and
441:
18:
7:
65:1 SCR 1021, (1992), 91 DLR (4th) 289
449:SCC Case Information - Docket 21838
361:Negligent Performance of a Service;
14:
27:
279:allowed in the United Kingdom.
270:Under the second branch of the
262:Under the first branch of the
213:New Westminster Railway Bridge
1:
467:Supreme Court of Canada cases
419:. Routledge-Cavendish. 2004.
306:on the facts of this case."
358:Negligent Misrepresentation;
16:Supreme Court of Canada case
187:, 1 SCR 1021 is a leading
513:
256:Kamloops (City) v. Nielsen
482:Canadian National Railway
477:1992 in Canadian case law
367:Relational Economic Loss.
348:Martel Building v. Canada
217:Canadian National Railway
175:
101:
90:
26:
425:10.4324/9781843145790-45
45:Judgment: April 30, 1992
451:Supreme Court of Canada
401:Supreme Court of Canada
189:Supreme Court of Canada
35:Supreme Court of Canada
492:1992 in rail transport
472:Canadian tort case law
117:Claire L'Heureux-Dubé
43:Hearing: May 2, 1991
242:Opinion of the court
221:Public Works Canada
193:pure economic loss
133:Beverley McLachlin
180:
179:
137:William Stevenson
504:
497:Railway case law
487:1992 in case law
452:
446:
438:
125:Charles Gonthier
113:GĂ©rard La Forest
110:Puisne Justices:
97:Court membership
31:
19:
512:
511:
507:
506:
505:
503:
502:
501:
457:
456:
455:
447:
443:
435:
412:
411:
397:
385:
316:
299:
285:
244:
225:Metro Vancouver
209:
141:Frank Iacobucci
108:
44:
38:
17:
12:
11:
5:
510:
508:
500:
499:
494:
489:
484:
479:
474:
469:
459:
458:
454:
453:
440:
433:
396:
395:External links
393:
392:
391:
384:
381:
369:
368:
365:
362:
359:
356:
343:
342:
339:
336:
315:
312:
298:
295:
294:
293:
284:
281:
243:
240:
208:
205:
178:
177:
173:
172:
169:
165:
164:
161:
157:
156:
153:
149:
148:
144:
143:
103:Chief Justice:
99:
98:
94:
93:
88:
87:
83:
82:
79:
75:
74:
71:
67:
66:
63:
57:
56:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
32:
24:
23:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
509:
498:
495:
493:
490:
488:
485:
483:
480:
478:
475:
473:
470:
468:
465:
464:
462:
450:
445:
442:
439:
436:
434:9781843145790
430:
426:
422:
418:
417:
410:
406:
402:
399:Full text of
394:
390:
387:
386:
382:
380:
378:
374:
366:
363:
360:
357:
354:
353:
352:
350:
349:
340:
337:
334:
333:
332:
330:
329:
323:
321:
313:
311:
307:
303:
296:
290:
289:
288:
282:
280:
276:
273:
268:
265:
260:
258:
257:
252:
250:
241:
239:
235:
231:
228:
226:
222:
218:
214:
206:
204:
202:
198:
194:
190:
186:
185:
174:
170:
166:
162:
158:
154:
150:
147:Reasons given
145:
142:
138:
134:
130:
126:
122:
118:
114:
111:
107:
106:Antonio Lamer
104:
100:
95:
89:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
62:
58:
55:
52:
48:
41:
37:
36:
30:
25:
20:
444:
416:Case summary
415:
403:decision at
398:
376:
372:
370:
346:
344:
326:
324:
319:
317:
308:
304:
300:
286:
277:
271:
269:
263:
261:
254:
248:
245:
236:
232:
229:
210:
201:duty of care
191:decision on
183:
182:
181:
163:Stevenson J.
121:John Sopinka
109:
102:
53:
33:
283:Concurrence
160:Concurrence
461:Categories
407: and
377:Bow Valley
207:Background
129:Peter Cory
70:Docket No.
314:Aftermath
61:Citations
383:See also
197:tort law
152:Majority
297:Dissent
168:Dissent
92:liable.
86:Holding
431:
409:CanLII
78:Ruling
73:21838
405:LexUM
373:Norsk
320:Norsk
429:ISBN
375:and
272:Anns
264:Anns
251:test
249:Anns
421:doi
345:In
325:In
227:.
195:in
463::
427:.
379:.
203:.
139:,
135:,
131:,
127:,
123:,
119:,
115:,
437:.
423::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
