Madden v Nelson and Fort Sheppard Railway Co.
{{Short description|Canadian constitutional law - federal railways}}
{{Use Canadian English|date=May 2021}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=May 2021}}
{{Infobox court case
|name = Madden v Nelson and Fort Sheppard Railway Co.
|court = Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
|image = NelsonAndFortSheppardRailway.png
|imagesize =
|imagelink =
|imagealt =
|caption = Map of the Nelson and Fort Sheppart Railway (in red)
|full name = Madden and another and Attorney General for British Columbia v Nelson and Fort Sheppard Railway Company
|date decided = July 19, 1899
|citations = [1899] AC 626, [1899] UKPC 47
|transcripts =
|judges = Earl of Halsbury, LC
Lord Watson
Lord Hobhouse
Lord Macnaghten
Sir Edward Fry
Sir Henry Strong, CJC
|number of judges =
|decision by = Earl of Halsbury, LC
|concurring =
|dissenting =
|concur/dissent =
|prior actions =
|appealed from = Supreme Court of British Columbia (Full Court)
|appealed to =
|subsequent actions =
|related actions =
|opinions =
|keywords = Canadian federalism
|italic title = yes
}}
Madden v Nelson and Fort Sheppard Railway Co. is a Canadian constitutional law decision, dealing with the application of provincial laws to federally regulated railways. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, at that time the highest appellate body in the British Empire, held that the provinces could not impose higher safety standards on federally regulated railways than were set out in federal law.
Facts
The Nelson and Fort Sheppard Railway was a railway in southern British Columbia. It ran from the town of Nelson, British Columbia to the town of Fort Shepherd on the Canadian-US border at Waneta. The railway was originally incorporated under provincial law in 1891, but in 1893 it was transferred to federal jurisdiction, as a "work for the general advantage of Canada".Madden v. Nelson & Fort Sheppard Railway, 1897 CarswellBC 74, 5 BCR 541 (BC SC (FullCt).An Act respecting the Nelson and Fort Sheppard Railway Company, SC 1893, c. 57, s. 1.
In 1891, the British Columbia legislature enacted the Cattle Protection Act, 1891. That Act provided that if a railway failed to erect fencing along its rail-line and a farm animal was injured by the operation of the railway, the railway was civilly liable in damages to the owner of the animal.Cattle Protection Act, 1891, SBC 1891, c. 1, s. 1.
This case arose when two horses owned by Madden were struck by a train operated by the Nelson and Fort Sheppard Railway. One was killed in the collision and the other had to be put down. Madden sued the railway for the value of the two horses.
Decisions of the British Columbia courts
Madden brought his action in the local County Court, relying on the provincial statute. That court, sitting with judge and jury, found the railway was liable and awarded damages.
The railway then appealed to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Counsel for the railway was Lyman Duff, who went on to become the Chief Justice of Canada, and an expert in the division of powers between the federal and provincial governments. Duff argued that the provincial requirement to erect fences conflicted with the safety regulations set out in the federal railway legislation. The province could not add to the safety regulations set out in federal law.
In a unanimous decision, the British Columbia Supreme Court agreed with Duff's argument. They overturned the County Court decision and set aside the damages award.
Decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
At that time, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was the highest appellate body for the British Empire. Litigants could appeal directly to the Judicial Committee, bypassing the Supreme Court of Canada.James G. Snell and Frederick Vaughan, The Supreme Court of Canada: History of the Institution (Toronto: Osgoode Society, 1985), p. 42. Madden appealed the decision of the British Columbia Supreme Court to the Judicial Committee, sitting in London. The Attorney General for British Columbia intervened in the appeal in support of the legislation.
In a short decision given by the Lord Chancellor, the Earl of Halsbury, the Judicial Committee dismissed Madden's appeal. The Lord Chancellor held that it was no answer to say that the federal statute was silent on the issue of protective fences. The jurisdiction to regulate the railway lay with the federal government, and the provincial government could not pass legislation that it thought the federal government should have enacted, as was set out in the preamble to the Cattle Protection Act. He concluded that the Act was not within provincial jurisdiction and was "manifestly ultra vires".[https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/1899/1899_47.html Madden v Nelson and Fort Sheppard Railway], [1899] AC 626, [1899] UKPC 47, 1899 CarswellBC 97.
The Lord Chancellor also referred to the Judicial Committee's recent decision, Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v Notre Dame de Bonsecours, decided in March, 1899, four months before Madden.[https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/1899/1899_22.html Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Notre Dame de Bonsecours], [1899] AC 367, [1899] UKPC 22. That case had held that a provincial law requiring property owners to keep their property in good condition did apply to a federally regulated railway, because the law did not purport to require the railway to change its physical structure. The Lord Chancellor distinguished the Madden case from Notre Dame de Bonsecours, saying: "... in this case there is the actual provision that there shall be a liability on the railway company unless they create such and such works upon their roadway. This is manifestly and clearly beyond the jurisdiction of the provincial legislature."
Significance of the decision
= Subsequent decisions =
The Supreme Court of Canada continues to cite the Madden case with approval, for the proposition that provincial laws cannot regulate the specifically federal nature of federally regulated works and undertakings.[https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2618/index.do Construction Montcalm Inc. v. Min. Wage Com., [1979
In 2019, the British Columbia Court of Appeal cited Madden and Notre Dame de Bonsecours in its decision holding that the province could not regulate the product shipped on a federally regulated pipeline.[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2019/2019bcca181/2019bcca181.html Reference re Environmental Management Act (British Columbia), 2019 BCCA 181 (CanLII)].[https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/trans-mountain-bc-appeal-court-1.5148368 Jason Proctor, "B.C. can't impose environmental laws that could kill Trans Mountain pipeline, court rules", CBC, May 24, 2019.] On appeal, the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal, "...for the unanimous reasons of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia."[https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/18118/index.do Reference re Environmental Management Act, 2020 SCC 1.]
= Department of Justice collection of cases =
In 1949, the Parliament of Canada abolished appeals to the Judicial Committee. The federal Department of Justice then published a three-volume collection of significant constitutional decisions of the Judicial Committee. The Madden case was included in that collection.Richard A. Olmsted, Q.C. (ed.), Decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council relating to the British North America Act, 1867 and the Canadian Constitution, 1867-1954, vol. I, p. 451 (Ottawa: Queen's Printer and Controller of Stationery, 1954).