John J. Robinette

The infant respondent was seriously injured when struck by a train operated by the appellant.

The action was commenced more than three years after the accident.

The appellant argued the action was barred by the two-year limitation period in section 342(1) of the federal Railway Act.

The respondent argued the applicable limitation period was the provincial Limitation of Actions Act, which extended the time for infants.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that section 342(1) of the Railway Act is ultra vires the federal Parliament to the extent that it purports to apply to a common law action for negligence in the operation of a railway.

The establishment of general limitation periods for personal injury is not an integral part of federal jurisdiction over railways.

Minority shareholders and debenture stockholders challenged the sale of surplus railway lands under nineteenth-century perpetual railway leases and a related agreement transferring lands to a subsidiary of the majority shareholder.

The Court held that the lessee had acquired, under the lease and statutory framework, the power to sell surplus lands, that the debenture stock constituted an incumbrance for purposes of the 1891 statute, and that reinvestment of sale proceeds in the railway satisfied the statutory scheme.

The Court further held that approved rail line abandonments did not breach the lease, the shareholder meeting approving the later transaction was validly called, and the majority shareholder lawfully held and voted shares.

The lessor was not entitled in law or equity to recover its reversionary interest in lands sold.

Appeals were dismissed and the respondent’s cross-appeals were allowed in part.

Appeal from an Ontario reference concerning the constitutional validity of legislation extending full public funding to Roman Catholic separate high schools.

The Supreme Court held the legislation was valid under the province's plenary education power in s. 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, read with s. 93(3), and that the Confederation compromise respecting denominational schools could not be overridden by Charter equality or religious-freedom guarantees.

A majority also concluded the legislation could be sustained as restoring rights protected by s. 93(1).

The appeal was dismissed, the reference question was answered in the negative, and no costs were awarded.

The Crown brought actions in the Federal Court, Trial Division to recover debts owed by the appellants under the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act and the Canada Student Loans Act.

The appellants argued the Federal Court lacked jurisdiction, relying on previous jurisprudence that mere contractual claims by the Crown do not fall under federal law.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the detailed statutory frameworks governing the advances and loans constituted existing and applicable federal law.

Therefore, the Federal Court had jurisdiction under section 17(4)(a) of the Federal Court Act and section 101 of the British North America Act.

The appeals were dismissed.