REX v. BONHOMME

(1918), 49 D.L.R. 690 (also reported: 59 S.C.R. 679)

Supreme Court of Canada, Fitzpatrick C.J., Davies, Idington, Anglin and Brodeur JJ., 1918

(On appeal from judgment of Exchequer Court of Canada, supra p.282)

--Appeal from the judgment of the Exchequer Court of Canada (1917), 38 D.L.R. 647,16 Can. Ex. 437, dismissing the action of the plaintiff appellant.

F. J. Bisaillon, K.C., and P. St. Germain, K.C., for appellant; F. L. Bezique, K.C., and N. A. Belcourt, K.C., for respondent.

It is an information of intrusion exhibited by the Attorney- General of Canada, whereby it is claimed that the Island of St. Nicholas, situate in navigable waters of the River St. Lawrence, in Lake St. Louis, be declared a portion of the Caughnawauga Indian Reserve and that the possession of the island be given the Indians. On the other hand, the Province of Quebec, claiming the ownership of the island, sold it in 1906 to the respondent.

The Supreme Court of Canada, after argument, reserved judgment and eventually affirmed the judgment of the Exchequer Court.

THE "WAKENA" v. UNION S.S. COMPANY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA.

Supreme Court of Canada, Fitzpatrick, C.J., Davies, Idington, Anglin and Brodeur, JJ. 1918.

--Appeal from the judgment of the Exchequer Court of Canada (1917), 37 D.L.R. 579, 16 Can. Ex. 397, reversing the decision of Martin, L.J.A. (1917), 35 D.L.R. 644, 24 B.C.R. 156, in the British Columbia Admiralty Division of the Exchequer Court of Canada and maintaining the respondent's action. Affirmed.

Aimé Geoffrion, K.C., for appellant; R. C. Holden, K.C., for respondent.

This is an action brought by the respondent, owner of the steamship "Venture," against the motor vessel "Wakena" for damages caused by the collision of the two vessels near the entrance to Burrard Inlet, in the First Narrows. The "Venture" was then on the south or proper side of the channel; the "Wakena" had got away to the north side and was trying to get back to the south which was also her proper side. It was common ground that the collision happened in a narrow channel and that the weather was calm but foggy at the time of the collision.

The Vice-Admiralty Judge of British Columbia held the "Wakena" to be without fault; but on appeal to the Exchequer Court, Admiralty side, Audette, J., with the assistance of a nautical adviser, held that the "Wakena" was the sole cause of the collision and that there was no mutual fault of the two vessels.

The Supreme Court of Canada, after hearing counsel and reserving judgment, dismissed the appeal with costs, Idington, J., dissenting.