Canadian Pacific Ltd. et al. v. Canadian Transport Commission et al.
Court headnote
Canadian Pacific Ltd. et al. v. Canadian Transport Commission et al. Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1980-03-03 Report [1980] 1 SCR 319 Judges Ritchie, Roland Almon; Beetz, Jean; Estey, Willard Zebedee; McIntyre, William Rogers; Chouinard, Julien On appeal from Federal Court of Appeal Subjects Transportation Decision Content Supreme Court of Canada Canadian Pacific Ltd. et al. v. Canadian Transport Commission et al., [1980] 1 S.C.R. 319 Date: 1980-03-03 Canadian Pacific Limited, Canadian National Railway, Dominion Atlantic Railway, Quebec Central Railway Company and Canadian Car Demurrage Bureau Appellants; and Canadian Transport Commission and Canadian National Millers Association Respondents. 1980: March 3. Present: Ritchie, Beetz, Estey, Mclntyre and Chouinard JJ. ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL Railways—Rates—Rates on flour moving—Demurrage charges included in the term rates in s. 272(2)(b) of the Railway Act—Railway Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. R-2, ss. 2, 271, 272,274—National Transportation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. N-17, ss. 45, 64(2). APPEAL from a judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal[1] dismissing an appeal from an order[2] of the Railway Transport Committee of the Canadian Transport Commission. Appeal dismissed. C.R.O. Munro, Q.C., and T.J. Moloney, for the appellants Canadian Pacific Limited, Dominion Atlantic Railway, Quebec Central Railway Company and Canadian Car Demurrage Bureau. H.J.G. Pye, Q.C., for the appellant Canadian National Railway. M.E. Roth…
Full judgment (source text)
Mirrored from decisions.scc-csc.ca — the linked original is authoritative.
Canadian Pacific Ltd. et al. v. Canadian Transport Commission et al. Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1980-03-03 Report [1980] 1 SCR 319 Judges Ritchie, Roland Almon; Beetz, Jean; Estey, Willard Zebedee; McIntyre, William Rogers; Chouinard, Julien On appeal from Federal Court of Appeal Subjects Transportation Decision Content Supreme Court of Canada Canadian Pacific Ltd. et al. v. Canadian Transport Commission et al., [1980] 1 S.C.R. 319 Date: 1980-03-03 Canadian Pacific Limited, Canadian National Railway, Dominion Atlantic Railway, Quebec Central Railway Company and Canadian Car Demurrage Bureau Appellants; and Canadian Transport Commission and Canadian National Millers Association Respondents. 1980: March 3. Present: Ritchie, Beetz, Estey, Mclntyre and Chouinard JJ. ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL Railways—Rates—Rates on flour moving—Demurrage charges included in the term rates in s. 272(2)(b) of the Railway Act—Railway Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. R-2, ss. 2, 271, 272,274—National Transportation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. N-17, ss. 45, 64(2). APPEAL from a judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal[1] dismissing an appeal from an order[2] of the Railway Transport Committee of the Canadian Transport Commission. Appeal dismissed. C.R.O. Munro, Q.C., and T.J. Moloney, for the appellants Canadian Pacific Limited, Dominion Atlantic Railway, Quebec Central Railway Company and Canadian Car Demurrage Bureau. H.J.G. Pye, Q.C., for the appellant Canadian National Railway. M.E. Rothstein, Q.C., and J.E. Foran, for the respondent Canadian National Millers Association. Gilbert W. Nadeau, for the respondent Canadian Transport Commission. THE COURT—We are all of the opinion that the disposition made of this appeal by the Federal Court of Appeal discloses no error. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed with costs. Solicitor for the appellants Canadian Pacific Limited, Dominion Atlantic Railway, Quebec Central Railway Company and Canadian Car Demurrage Bureau: C.R.O. Munro, Montreal. Solicitor for the appellant Canadian National Railway: H.J.G. Pye, Montreal. Solicitor for the respondent Canadian Transport Commission: Gilbert W. Nadeau, Hull. Solicitors for the respondent Canadian National Millers Association: MacAulay & Thorvaldson, Winnipeg. [1] [1979] 2 F.C. 809. [2] Order No. R-26686, May 16, 1978.
Source: decisions.scc-csc.ca
Quebec (Attorney General) v A
[2013] 1 SCR 61