The appellant sought to route a new electrical transmission line through lands over which it held decades-old servitudes originally established by expropriation for a different line.
The respondents denied access and challenged the scope of the servitudes, contending they were confined to the original line between two named substations.
The Court held that post-expropriation notarial agreements constituted conventional servitude agreements that must prevail over the notices of expropriation, and that those agreements, being clear on their face, authorized up to three electrical transmission lines without restriction as to origin or destination of electricity.
The Court of Appeal had erred by interfering with findings of mixed fact and law in the absence of a palpable and overriding error, and by relying on an order in council not in evidence after the hearing without affording the parties an opportunity to be heard.
The appeal was allowed, the trial judgment restored (except the dismissal of the cross-application), and the case remanded to the Superior Court for hearing of the cross-application.
