- FITH,GEORGE WRIGHT, PHILIP
J. SLATER, J HORNBROOK, W. J.
McCORMACK, JOHN DONOGHI,
WILLIAM BADENACH, WALTER
H. BLIGHT, ROBERT DODDS
A.
SiR W. J. RITCHIE C. J.-The proceedings in this case which gave rise to the present application were caused by a misunderstanding in the Court of Appeal as to the decision of this court in the case of O'Sullivan v. Harty. In that case the judgment of the Court of Appeal was not entered until November 14, 1884, although judgment had been pronounced on the 80th June, 1884, the delay having been occasioned by a substantial question affecting the rights of the parties having arisen on the settlement of the minutes. Such question was discussed before one of the judges, and subsequently before the full court before being finally determined.
On November 27, 1884, the respondent in the Court of Appeal applied to a judge in chambers of the Supreme Court of Canada for leave to give security under section 31 of the Supreme
Court Act as amended by section 14 of the Supreme Court Amendment Act of 1879.
This application was referred to the full bench which held that the time for appealing in that case, under section 25 of the Supreme Court Act, began to run from the 14th of November, 1884, the date of entry of the judgment of the Court of Appeal. What we decided in that case was:
That where any substantial matter remains to be determined before the judgment can be entered the time for appealing runs from the entry of the judgment.
Where nothing remains to be settled, as for instance in the case of the simple dismissal of a bill, where no judgment requires to be entered, the time for appealing runs from the pronouncing of the judgment. The Court of Appeal, however, appears to have been under theimpression that this court had laid down a cast-iron rule that the time should run in every case from the entry of the judgment.
In this case I should have less hesitation in reaffirming the rule, because application to extend the time for appealing was made by the appellants to one of the judges who had beard the case in the Court of Appeal, who refused the application after considering all the circumstances of the case, and came to the conclusion that it. was not a case in which the indulgence should
Statutes and regulations cited
-
Supreme Court Act
-
Unresolved citations
- section 31
- section 14 of the Supreme Court Amendment Act