Ontario v. Canadian Pacific Ltd., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1028

Canadian Pacific Limited Appellant

v.

Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Ontario Respondent

and

The Attorney General of Quebec, the Attorney General of Manitoba, the Attorney General for Saskatchewan and Canadian Environmental Law Association Interveners

Indexed as: Ontario v. Canadian Pacific Ltd.

File No.: 23721.

1995: January 24.

Present: Lamer C.J. and La Forest, L'Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

on appeal from the court of appeal for ontario

Constitutional law ‑‑ Division of powers ‑‑ Federal undertaking ‑‑ Whether or not federal undertaking subject to provincial law.

Cases Cited

Applied: Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Corporation of the Parish of Notre Dame de Bonsecours, [1899] A.C. 367.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (1993), 1993 8608 (ON CA), 13 O.R. (3d) 389, 63 O.A.C. 222, 103 D.L.R. (4th) 255, 10 C.E.L.R. (N.S.) 169, 81 C.C.C. (3d) 498, 22 C.R. (4th) 238, 15 C.R.R. (2d) 278, allowing an appeal from a judgment of Fraser Prov. J. (1992), 9 C.E.L.R. (N.S.) 26, allowing an appeal from acquittal by the Provincial Offences Court of Ontario. The first constitutional question is answered in the affirmative.

H. C. Wendlandt and G. Despars, for the appellant.

David Lepofsky and Pat Moran, for the respondent.

Jean Bouchard, for the intervener the Attorney General of Quebec.

Kenneth J. Tyler and Stewart J. Pierce, for the intervener the Attorney General of Manitoba.

Graeme G. Mitchell, for the intervener the Attorney General for Saskatchewan.

Richard D. Lindgren, for the intervener Canadian Environmental Law Association (written submission only).

The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by

[1] Lamer C.J. ‑‑ We are all of the view that the judgment Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Corporation of the Parish of Notre Dame de Bonsecours, [1899] A.C. 367, governs the first issue in this appeal and, accordingly, the appeal with respect to that ground fails, and the first constitutional question is answered in the affirmative:

1.Does s. 13(1)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 141 (now s. 14(1) of the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E‑19), constitutionally apply to the appellant when maintaining its right‑of‑way?

Answer: Yes.

Question numbers 2 and 3 are held in reserve.*

Judgment accordingly.

Solicitor for the appellant: Canadian Pacific Legal Services, Montreal.

Solicitors for the respondent: The Ministry of the Attorney General and the Ministry of Environment and Energy, Toronto.

Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General of Quebec: The Attorney General of Quebec, Ste‑Foy.

Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General of Manitoba: The Attorney General of Manitoba, Winnipeg.

Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General for Saskatchewan: W. Brent Cotter, Regina.

Solicitor for the intervener Canadian Environmental Law Association: Canadian Environmental Law Association, Toronto.

• See 1995 112 (SCC), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1031.