|
€€Il€se€peut€que€les€int r ts€dð ðune€jeuneÏnation€en€voie€de€d veloppement€soient€mieux€servis€en€r duisant€lesÏobstacles€ €la€croissance€industrielle€et€ €lð ðexpansion€ conomique,€mais€auÏsein€dð ðune€nation€plus€d velopp e€et€populeuse,€ce€laisser-aller€doit€c der€leÏpas€ €lð ðint r t€l gitime€quð ðentretient€la€soci t € €lð ð gard€dð ðautresÏpr occupations€fondamentales€telles€que€la€s curit €et€le€bien- tre€desÏenfants.Ó $ ÓÐ « Ð « Ð ÐÌSouscrivant€au€dispositif€du€jugeDickson,€Ô # † X mÊ X X X mÊ}# # ÔÔ ‡ X mÊ X X X mÊ Ôle€juge€en€chefLaskinÔ # † X mÊ X X X mÊq( # ÔÔ ‡ X mÊ X X X mÊ Ô€a€critiqu €la€r gle€deÐ \ ô Ðfa on€encore€plus€tranchante,€aux€pp.689€ €690:ÌÌÓ Óà0 « à...€je€ne€puis€comprendre€pourquoi€les€compagnies€ferroviaires,€dans€laÏgestion€de€leurs€op rations€de€transport,€jouissent€aujourdð ðhui€dð ðune€r gleÏsp ciale€qui€leur€est€plus€favorable€et€selon€laquelle€nous€devons€d terminerÏleur€responsabilit €civile.€€Lorsque€lð ðon€tient€compte€de€lð ðapplication€et€deÏla€port e€des€r glements€ manant€de€lð ðorganisme€de€contrð= ðle,€la€CommissionÏcanadienne€des€transports,€ €laquelle€les€compagnies€de€chemin€de€fer€sontÏassujetties,€et€lorsque€la€question€de€la€responsabilit €de€celles-ci€entrað3 ðneÏlð ðapplication€du€droit€commun€relatif€ €la€n gligence,€comme€cð ðest€le€cas€enÏlð ðesp ce,€ces€compagnies€ne€peuvent€pr tendre€ tre€jug es€selon€des€crit resÏdiff rents€de€ceux€qui€sð ðappliquent€aux€autres€personnes€ou€aux€autresÏentit s€dont€la€responsabilit €est€retenue€pour€cause€de€n gligence.Ó F) ÓÐ « Ð « Ð ÐÌÝ ‚ % Ñýÿ ÝÝ ÝÝ ‚ % Ñýï, Ýà „ àÚ ƒ z Ú33Ú ÚÛ € z !
|
|
P è ÐÔ_ ÔPrairieñ = ñ,ñ = ñÔ_ ÔÔ_ Ôñ = ñ€Cityñ = ñÔ_ ÔÔ_ Ôñ = ñ€ofñ = ñÔ_ Ô€v.€Ô_ ÔB.C.Ô_ Ô€Pea€Growers€Ltd.ó ó,€[1966]€S.C.R.€150;ò ò€Schenck€v.€Ontario€(Minister€ofÐ è € ÐTransportation€and€Communications)ó ó,€[1987]€2€S.C.R.€289.€€An€unsuccessful€attemptÐ €! " Ðwas€made€in€ò òTockó ó,ò ò€supraó ó,€to€depart€from€the€traditional€ruleÔ # † X ƒ X X X ƒ š # ÔÔ ‡ ' X ? X X X ƒ Ô.€€Wilson€J.€writing€for€herselfÐ #° $ Ðand€two€others,€sought€to€limit€the€defence€to€cases€involving€either€mandatory€duties€orÏstatutes€which€specify€the€precise€manner€of€performance.€€La€Forest€J.€(Dickson€Ô_ ÔC.J.Ô_ ÔÏconcurring)€took€the€more€extreme€view€that€the€defence€should€be€abolished€entirelyÏunless€there€is€an€express€statutory€exemption€from€liability.€€Neither€of€those€positionsÏcarried€a€majority.€€Ô # † X ƒ X X ' X ?ܬ # ÔÔ ‡ ' X ? X X X ƒ ÔÝ ƒ % Ñý7¨ R¨ ݌Р+¨$. Ðâ âŒÝ ÝÐ ¨,@&0 ÐÔ_ ÔÝ ‚ % Ñýÿ ÝÝ ÝÝ ‚ % Ñýo¯ Ýà „ àÚ ƒ z Ú55Ú ÚÛ € z 7 Ûà Ü àÝ Ýà « àIn€the€absence€of€a€new€rule,€it€would€be€appropriate€to€restate€the€traditionalÐ h Ðview,€which€remains€Ô # † X ƒ X X ' X ?è® # ÔÔ ‡ ' X ? X X X ƒ Ôthe€most€predictable€approach€to€the€issue€and€the€simplest€to€apply.€Ð ˜ ÐThat€approach€was€expressed€by€Sopinka€J.€in€ò òTockó ó,€at€p.€Ô # † X ƒ X X ' X ?›° # ÔÔ ‡ ' X ? X X X ƒ Ô1226:Ý ƒ % Ñýo¯ Н ݌Р˜ 0 Ðâ ââ ââ ââ ââ ââ ââ âŒÝ ÝÌÔ # † X mÊ X X ' X äU§³ # ÔÔ ‡ X mÊ X X X mÊ Ôà0 « àÓ ÓThe€defendant€must€negative€that€there€are€alternate€methods€of€carrying€outÐ È ` Ðthe€work.€€The€mere€fact€that€one€is€considerably€less€expensive€will€notÏavail.€€If€only€one€method€is€practically€feasible,€it€must€be€established€thatÏit€was€practically€impossible€to€avoid€the€nuisance.€€It€is€insufficient€for€theÏdefendant€to€negative€negligence.€€The€standard€is€a€higher€one.€€While€theÏdefence€gives€rise€to€some€factual€difficulties,€in€view€of€the€allocation€ofÏthe€burden€of€proof€they€will€be€resolved€against€the€defendant.Ð « Ð « Ð ÐÌÓ ]´ ÓÔ # † X mÊ X X X mÊ2´ # ÔÔ ‡ X mÊ X X X mÊ ÔÌÝ ‚ % Ñýÿ ÝÝ ÝÝ ‚ % Ñý · Ýà „ àÚ ƒ z Ú56Ú ÚÛ € z 8 Ûà Ü àÝ Ýà « àTurning€to€the€facts€of€this€case,€the€question€raised€by€the€traditional€test€isÐ À X Ðwhether€the€hazard€created€on€Store€Street€was€an€ð ðinevitable€resultð ð€of€exercisingÏstatutory€authority;€that€is,€whether€it€was€ð ðpractically€impossibleð ð€for€the€Railways€toÏavoid€the€nuisance€which€arose€from€the€Ô_ ÔflangewaysÔ_ Ô.Ô # † X mÊ X X X mÊæ¶ # ÔÔ ‡ X mÊ X X X mÊ Ô€€As€noted€previously€in€the€contextÐ ˆ Ðof€negligence,€the€
|