Majority
English version of the judgment of the Court delivered by
Judgment of the Court — CHOUINARD J.
CHOUINARD J.—This appeal raises the same points of law as Goodman v. Rompkey et al., [1982] 1 S.C.R. 589, judgment which was rendered concurrently.
Aside from the facts, which of course are different, this appeal only differs from the other in two respects. In the case at bar, the appellants inscribed in appeal to the Court of Appeal as of right, rather than with leave of a judge of the Court of Appeal. In addition, the object of the
[Page 606]
appeal, instead of being the approval of the Superior Court judge, is the decision of that judge, who found that he had the power to review his initial approval and then decided not to review it.
The question of whether a judge has the power to review his own approval is not at issue. There was no cross-appeal. This question was therefore not before the Court of Appeal, and the latter did not rule on it. Counsel for the respondent stated that he was not disputing the power of a judge to review his approval. Rather, to use his own phrase, he made the best of it.
In my opinion, the fact that the appeal relates to the decision of the judge not to review his initial approval, rather than to the initial approval itself, in no way alters the points of law to be decided in disposing of the appeal, as counsel for the appellants admitted at the hearing in answer to a question from the Court. Whether an approval or, if applicable, a revised approval is in question, if there is no appeal from the one there cannot be an appeal from the other.
For the reasons given in Goodman, supra, therefore, I would dismiss this appeal with costs.
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Solicitors for the appellants: Pateras & Iezzoni, Montreal.
Solicitor for the respondent: Jacques Ouellet, Montreal.
Cases cited
- Goodman v. Rompkey et al. 16717-1982-05-10