← Cases

The Corporation of Verchères v. The Corporation of the Village of Varennes

(1891) 19 SCR 365 Court SCC Decision date 1891-11-17 English

Contents
gants notwithstanding the numerous decisions of this court on the subject, reading the words " where the rights in future might be bound " in sec. 29. of the Supreme Court Act without reference to the preceding words " such like matters or things."
Gilbert Gilman
Now here there is no controversy as to rent or revenue payable to Her Majesty or as to any title to land, or annual rent, or such like matter or things. The municipality of the County of Verchares passed a by-law, or procds verbal, defining who were to
J. be liable for the rebuilding and maintenance of a certain bridge. The municipality of Varennes, by their action in this case, demand the setting aside of that by-law or procds verbal on the ground of certain illegalities therein.
The judgment appealed from maintains their action and sets aside the by-law or procds verbal. That judgment is not appealable either under sec. 29 or sec. 24 subsec. g of the Act.
McManamy v.
Sherbrooke
This is not a case of a rule or order to quash. It may be analogous, or have the same consequences.
But we cannot extend our jurisdiction by interpretation to cases not clearly and unmistakeably provided for by the statute. In Parliament, not in this court, lies the power to remedy the act if an omission appears therein. We cannot add anything to its enactment. No right of appeal can be given by implication,
"the courts are not to fish out what may possibly have been the intention of the legislature ;" per Lord
Brougham, Crawford v. Spooner (4); or extend the language of a statute beyond its natural meaning for the purpose of including cases simply because no good reason can be assigned for their exclusion; Denn v.
Reid (1) ; and unless by words written, or words necessarily implied and therefore virtually written, the intention has been declared, we cannot give effect to or Coleridge J. in Gwlynne v. Burnell (2), or as Lord Eldon said in Crawford v. Spooner " we cannot add and mend and by construction make up deficiencies which are left there."
Appeal quashed with costs. Solicitor for appellant: Archambault, Q.C.

Statutes and regulations cited