Schenck v. Ontario; Rokeby v. Ontario

Schenck v. Ontario; Rokeby v. Ontario
Collection
Supreme Court Judgments
Date
1987-10-13
Report
[1987] 2 SCR 289
Case number
19166, 19167
Judges
Dickson, Robert George Brian; Estey, Willard Zebedee; McIntyre, William Rogers; Wilson, Bertha; Le Dain, Gerald Eric; La Forest, Gérard V.; L'Heureux-Dubé, Claire
On appeal from
Ontario
Subjects
Action
Torts
Notes
SCC Case Information: 19166, 19167
Decision Content
Schenck v. Ontario; Rokeby v. Ontario, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 289
Her Majesty The Queen in right of Ontario represented by the Minister of Transportation and Communications for the Province of Ontario Appellant
v.
Louis Schenck and Schenck Farms & Greenhouses Co. Limited Respondents
and between
Her Majesty The Queen in right of Ontario Appellant
v.
Michael C. Rokeby Respondent
indexed as: schenck v. ontario (minister of transportation and communications); rokeby v. ontario
File Nos.: 19167, 19166.
1987: October 13.
Present: Dickson C.J. and Estey, McIntyre, Wilson, Le Dain, La Forest and L'Heureux‑Dubé JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for ontario
Torts ‑‑ Nuisance ‑‑ Orchards damaged by use of salt as the de‑icing agent on adjoining highway ‑‑ Liability of the Crown for damage to orchards from road salt.
Limitation of actions ‑‑ Nuisance ‑‑ Liability of the Crown for damage to orchards from road salt ‑‑ Determination of appropriate limitation period.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (1984), 49 O.R. (2d) 556, 15 D.L.R. (4th) 320, dismissing an appeal from a judgment of Robins J. holding the Crown responsible for nuisance (1981), 34 O.R. (2d) 591, 131 D.L.R. (3d) 310, and determining the applicable limitation period (1982), 40 O.R. (2d) 410, 142 D.L.R. (3d) 361. Appeal dismissed.
T. H. Wickett, Q.C., and Valerie Lawson, for the appellant.
J. Spence Stewart, Q.C., P. P. Duvernet and C. Duvernet, for the respondents Schenck et al.
George R. Strathy and R. Staley, for the respondent Rokeby.
The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by
1. The Chief Justice‑‑It will not be necessary to call upon you Mr. Stewart and Mr. Strathy. We are all in agreement with the conclusions reached by Robins J. at trial and the reasons therefor, all as affirmed by the Court of Appeal of Ontario. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs to the respondents as between a solicitor and his client.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitor for the appellant: The Deputy Attorney General, Toronto.
Solicitors for the respondents Schenck et al.: Duvernet, Stewart, Toronto.
Solicitors for the respondent Rokeby: Wright & McTaggart, Toronto.