Case information

Civil liability — Railway companies — Fault — Causal connection — Whether Court of Appeal erred in law by applying logic of immunity to analysis of respondent’s civil liability, thereby neutralizing principles developed in Ryan v. Victoria (City), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 201 — Whether Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that, despite principle of good faith, respondent has no obligation to inform itself or to share information in its possession in order to protect public and make transportation of crude oil as safe as possible — Whether Court of Appeal erred in analyzing causal connection by completely ignoring source of extracontractual liability, namely respondent’s contractual fault in neglecting its obligation to inform — Whether Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of railway acting as reasonable originating carrier, in accordance with, among others, Ryan, by stating that respondent had no obligation to seek information from connecting carrier about its operations plan in order to ensure safety in transportation of dangerous goods during stage of route operated by connecting carrier — Whether Court of Appeal erred in not recognizing that respondent should have taken action with connecting carrier to ensure that train was not left unattended, on incline, on main track, with no additional protective mechanism other than independent brakes and hand brakes — Whether Court of Appeal should have found that respondent’s obligations would have made it possible to avoid tragedy — Whether reasonableness standard of conduct for Class 1 railways under art. 1457 of Civil Code of Quebec is restricted to duties imposed by statute and industry practices — When determining causation under art. 1457, whether court should adopt contextual analysis and consider whether derailment was reasonably foreseeable consequence of respondent’s failure to act, intervene and warn of connecting carrier’s dangerous practices.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Following the tragic derailment in downtown Lac-Mégantic of a train transporting crude oil, the applicants brought proceedings against the Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Canada Company (“MMA”) and the respondent, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company (“CP”).

The Quebec Superior Court dismissed the proceedings brought against CP, since it was of the view that CP could not be found legally liable and that the actions of MMA and its employee had been the sole cause of the derailment. The Quebec Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants’ appeals. It held unanimously that the trial judge had correctly stated the law as it stood regarding CP’s liability and had applied it correctly. Furthermore, contrary to what the applicants claimed, the judge’s findings of fact were firmly anchored in the evidence and were free from any reviewable error. Finally, there was no error in the judge’s finding on causation. Thus, even on the assumption that CP’s conduct was wrongful, it still would not have been the cause of the derailment.