| Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Notre Dame de Bonsecours | |
|---|---|
 The railway through Notre-Dame-de-Bonsecours (now the village of Fassett) | |
| Court | Judicial Committee of the Privy Council |
| Full case name | Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Corporation of the Parish of Notre Dame de Bonsecours |
| Decided | March 24, 1899 |
| Citations |
|
| Case history | |
| Appealed from | Cie de Chemin de Fer Canadien du Pacifique v Notre-Dame-de-Bonsecours (Paroisse), 1897 CarswellQue 80, 7 Que. QB 121 Quebec Court of Queen's Bench .svg){kind=small} |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Earl of Halsbury, LC Lord Watson Lord Hobhouse Lord Macnaghten Lord Morris Lord Shand Lord Davey |
| Case opinions | |
| Provincial laws apply to federally regulated railways, provided the laws do not regulate the construction and management of the railway | |
| Decision by | Lord Watson |
| Keywords | |
| Constitutional division of powers; municipal law; federally regulated works and undertakings | |
Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v Notre Dame de Bonsecours is a Canadian constitutional law decision, dealing with the powers of the provinces under the Constitution Act, 1867 (formerly the British North America Act, 1867). The point in issue was whether the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, a federally regulated railway, was required to comply with an order issued by a municipality under provincial law. The municipal order required the CPR Co. to clean a ditch beside its rail line, which had become blocked and flooded neighbouring land, under penalty of $20 per day until the ditch was cleared.
The case arose in the province of Quebec and was appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Britain, at that time the highest court of appeal for the British Empire. The Judicial Committee held that the provincial law applied to the railway provided it did not regulate the structure or operation of the railway.
The case is a foundational case for the scope of provincial legislation over federally regulated works and undertakings, and continues to be cited regularly by the Supreme Court of Canada. It has particular significance in environmental law cases.