Irizawa v Corner

Irizawa v Corner

Irizawa v Corner et al., [1940] 1 DLR 786
There was a collision on a highway after intense snowfall, wherein the case depended on the definition of the ‘“travelled portion of the highway”’ and whether it referred to the ‘10 ft of beaten portion of the highway’ or the ‘whole 22 ft in width of surface of the highway’ (786). It was decided that because the plaintiff had not turned on to the ‘7 or 8 ft of snowcovered highway on the right of the beaten portion but merely to the right-hand side of the beaten 10 ft of the road, the learned Judge [who had originally ruled on the case] held him solely responsible for the collision’ (787).
Corner and M. Furuya Company Limited



Irizawa v Corner


Researcher: Monique F. Ulysses
Researcher: Lauren Chalaturnyk
Metadata author: Connell Parish
Metadata author: Gordon Lyall
Publication Information: See Terms of Use for publication and licensing information.
Source: British Columbia County Court. Dominion Law Reports. 1939.


Readers of these historical materials will encounter derogatory references to Japanese Canadians and euphemisms used to obscure the intent and impacts of the internment and dispossession. While these are important realities of the history, the Landscapes of Injustice Research Collective urges users to carefully consider their own terminological choices in writing and speaking about this topic today as we confront past injustice. See our statement on terminology, and related sources here.