Schenck v. Ontario; Rokeby v. Ontario, [1987] 2 SCR 289

Schenck v. Ontario; Rokeby v. Ontario, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 289    

Her Majesty The Queen in right of Ontario represented by the Minister of Transportation and Communications for the Province of Ontario                                                                Appellant

v.

Louis Schenck and Schenck Farms & Greenhouses Co. Limited   Respondents

and between

Her Majesty The Queen in right of Ontario                                    Appellant

v.

Michael C. Rokeby     Respondent

indexed as: schenck v. ontario (minister of transportation and communications); rokeby v. ontario

File Nos.: 19167, 19166.

1987: October 13.

Present: Dickson C.J. and Estey, McIntyre, Wilson, Le Dain, La Forest and L'Heureux‑Dubé JJ.

on appeal from the court of appeal for ontario

                   Torts ‑‑ Nuisance ‑‑ Orchards damaged by use of salt as the de‑icing agent on adjoining highway ‑‑ Liability of the Crown for damage to orchards from road salt.

                   Limitation of actions ‑‑ Nuisance ‑‑ Liability of the Crown for damage to orchards from road salt ‑‑ Determination of appropriate limitation period.

                   APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (1984), 49 O.R. (2d) 556, 15 D.L.R. (4th) 320, dismissing an appeal from a judgment of Robins J. holding the Crown responsible for nuisance (1981), 34 O.R. (2d) 591, 131 D.L.R. (3d) 310, and determining the applicable limitation period (1982), 40 O.R. (2d) 410, 142 D.L.R. (3d) 361. Appeal dismissed.

                   T. H. Wickett, Q.C., and Valerie Lawson, for the appellant.

                   J. Spence Stewart, Q.C., P. P. Duvernet and C. Duvernet, for the respondents Schenck et al.

                   George R. Strathy and R. Staley, for the respondent Rokeby.

                   The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by

1.                The Chief Justice‑‑It will not be necessary to call upon you Mr. Stewart and Mr. Strathy. We are all in agreement with the conclusions reached by Robins J. at trial and the reasons therefor, all as affirmed by the Court of Appeal of Ontario. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs to the respondents as between a solicitor and his client.

                   Judgment accordingly.

                   Solicitor for the appellant: The Deputy Attorney General, Toronto.

                   Solicitors for the respondents Schenck et al.: Duvernet, Stewart, Toronto.

                   Solicitors for the respondent Rokeby: Wright & McTaggart, Toronto.