![cover image](https://wikiwandv2-19431.kxcdn.com/_next/image?url=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/Quebec%252C_Montreal%252C_Ottawa_and_Occidental_Railway_palace_car.jpg/640px-Quebec%252C_Montreal%252C_Ottawa_and_Occidental_Railway_palace_car.jpg&w=640&q=50)
Bourgoin v La Compagnie du Chemin de Fer de Montréal, Ottawa & Occidental, and Ross
Canadian constitutional law case – 1880 / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bourgoin v La Compagnie du Chemin de Fer de Montréal, Ottawa & Occidental, and Ross is a Canadian constitutional law case decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, at that time the highest court of appeal for the British Empire. Although the case initially dealt with the power of arbitrators under the federal Railway Act, the underlying constitutional issue was the relationship between federal and provincial regulation of a railway in Quebec. The Judicial Committee ruled that the province could not unilaterally take over ownership and regulation of a federally regulated railway.
Bourgoin v La Compagnie du Chemin de Fer de Montréal, Ottawa & Occidental, and Ross | |
---|---|
![]() Quebec, Montreal, Ottawa and Occidental Railway palace car | |
Court | Judicial Committee of the Privy Council |
Decided | February 14, 1880, and February 26, 1880 |
Citations | [1880] UKPC 8, 5 App Cas 381 |
Case history | |
Appealed from | Quebec Court of Queen's Bench (Appeal Side) ![]() |
Court membership | |
Judges sitting | (1) Ruling on Arbitration Award: Sir James W. Colvile Sir Barnes Peacock Sir Montague E. Smith Sir Robert P. Collier (2) Ruling on Constitutional Issue: Sir James W. Colvile Sir Barnes Peacock Sir Montague E. Smith |
Case opinions | |
Decision by | Sir James W. Colvile |
Keywords | |
Arbitration awards; division of powers; federally and provincially regulated railways |
The case was on appeal from the courts of Quebec, and was a consolidation of four different legal cases arising out of a single commercial dispute, an expropriation of a quarry by the railway company. At issue was the amount of compensation which the railway company owed to the operators of the quarry, and whether the quarry operators could enforce the monetary award against the property of the railway company. The final result was mixed, with part of the ruling in favour of the railway company and part in favour of the quarry operators.
The case continues to be cited in relation to the interplay between federal and provincial railway regulation.