Marcus Spivock

In 1970, the Crown expropriated immovables under the Code of Civil Procedure, which allowed unilateral discontinuance.

In 1973, a new Expropriation Act required the Expropriation Tribunal's authorization to discontinue.

In 1979, the Crown attempted to unilaterally discontinue the 1970 expropriations.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the new Act applied immediately to the Crown and did not constitute retroactive legislation.

The Crown had no vested right to unilaterally discontinue, as it was merely an unexercised option.

The appeal was dismissed, meaning the Crown required the Tribunal's authorization to discontinue.

The victim of a workplace accident elected to receive compensation from the Workmen's Compensation Commission and subsequently sued the perpetrators of the accident for the full amount of his damages.

Over a year after the accident, the Commission sought to intervene in the victim's action to recover the compensation it had paid.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that upon the victim's election, the Commission was subrogated to his rights for the compensation amount, leaving the victim with only the right to claim any additional sum.

Consequently, the Commission lacked the necessary interest to intervene in the victim's action, and the victim's action did not interrupt the prescription period for the Commission's claim, which was therefore prescribed.