Supreme Court of Canada
MacMillan Bloedell (Alberni) Ltd. et al. v. British Columbia Hydro & Power Authority et al., [1975] 1 S.C.R. 263
Date: 1973-10-19
MacMillan Bloedell (Alberni) Limited and MacMillan Bloedell Industries Limited (Plaintiffs) Appellants;
and
British Columbia Hydro & Power Authority, Basil Van Horne and Alex Brayden (Defendants) Respondents;
and
Windsor Construction (1962) Ltd. and Roy David Adams (Defendants) Respondents.
1973: October 16, 17, 18, 19; 1973: October 19.
Present: Fauteux C.J. and Abbott, Martland, Judson, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Laskin and Dickson JJ.
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA
Negligence—Blasting operations resulting in power line landing on guy wire—Discharge of electricity through guy wire causing forest fire—Action for damages.
APPEAL and CROSS-APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia[1], reversing in part a judgment of Rae J. Appeal of MacMillan Bloedell and cross‑appeal of respondent Adams allowed.
J.J. Robinette, Q.C., and D. Shaw, for the plaintiffs, appellants.
J.J. Fitzpatrick, Q.C., A. McEachern and R.B. Harvey, for the defendants, respondents and cross-appellants British Columbia Hydro and Van Horne.
H.J. Grey, Q.C., and R. Weddigen, for the defendant, respondent and cross-appellant Brayden.
J.W. Horn, for the defendant, respondent and cross-appellant Adams.
[Page 264]
The judgment of the Court was delivered by
THE CHIEF JUSTICE (orally)—The issues in this appeal, the cross-appeal and on the motions to vary, raise, in the main, questions of fact; i.e., whether or not the various respondents were liable, by reason of their negligence to the appellant, their respective responsibilities, as among themselves, to contribute toward the loss, and the question as to whether the appellant took all reasonable steps to mitigate its loss. They have all been fully argued. We are all of the opinion that there was ample evidence to support the findings of the learned trial judge, and we agree with his reasons and conclusions on these various points.
The matter of the appellant’s claim for damages for snag felling and reforestation costs, raises a question of law. We are in agreement with the decision of the learned trial judge on this point.
In the result, the appellant’s appeal and the cross-appeal of the respondent Adams are allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside and the judgment of the trial judge is restored. The appellant is entitled to its costs in this Court and in the Court of Appeal against the respondents British Columbia Hydro & Power Authority, Basil Van Horne and Alex Brayden. The respondent Adams is entitled, as against those respondents, to his costs in this Court, and in the Court of Appeal. The motions of the respondents British Columbia Hydro & Power Authority, Basil Van Horne and Alex Brayden to vary the judgment of the Court of Appeal are dismissed, with costs payable to the appellant.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitors for the appellants: Davis & Co., Vancouver.
Solicitors for the respondent Alex Brayden: Harper, Grey, Easton & Co., Vancouver.
Solicitors for respondents British Columbia Hydro & Power Authority and Basil Van Home: Russell & DuMoulin, Vancouver.
[Page 265]
Solicitors for respondent Windsor Construction Co.: Macdonald, Russell & Kowarsky, Vancouver.