Heyes Inc. v. South Coast B.C. Transportation Authority, 2011 BCCA 77

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/CA/11/00/2011BCCA0077.htm

If I had more time, I would definitely try to read more legal judgments. They are very logically laid out and for the most part a very interesting read.

I was intrigue on CBC that Heyes' damages was appealed. Basically she ran a shop on Cambie and sued Translink for damages because of nuisance. She argued that she suffered harm from a disruption in her business, which was caused by a reduction of traffic because of the cut and cover tunnel construction of the Canada Line, an inference initiated by Translink.

Let's set the record straight: I thought Heyes deserved to lose. She was hindering progress.

It boiled down to the finding that Translink was acting under the statutory authority of the city when it redirected traffic (the interference that caused harm) during the construction of the Canada Line. However, it didn't have statutory authority of cut and cover tunnel construction, which directly caused the need to redirect traffic.

Translink though did have the authority to construct the Canada Line, and the Appeal Court found that there was no viable alternative to cut and cover tunneling when the whole project was looked at holistically; the trial judge erred in measuring the gain in social utility by choosing the cut and cover method, and that other options, such as tunnel boring, were not a viable alternative.

Therefore, the fact that Translink had no statutory authority to use the cut and tunnel method was rendered inconsequential, as it was the only viable construction method when it exerted its statutory authority to construct the Canada Line. Thus Translink did not commit nuisance under the defense of statutory authority--that it had the right to commit the inference as dictated by a statue (law).