MOTION for special leave to appeal from the decision of the Court of King's Bench, appeal side, province of Quebec, affirming the judgment of the Superior Court and maintaining the respondent's action.
The appellant and the respondent companies operate railways in the city of Quebec, the former a tramway service and the latter a transcontinental railway. In June, 1920, the appellant made an application to the Board of Railway Commissioners of Canada for permission to cross the tracks of the respondent; and the Board granted it upon the following condition amongst others: " The Canadian Pacific Railway Company shall employ and pay the signalmen necessary to operate the interlocking plant, at the joint expense of " both companies.
In December, 1920, an employee of the respondent met with an accident while operating the semaphore, and as a consequence of the accident, he sued the respondent company under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The respondent, without giving the appellant any notice, contested this action and was condemned to pay the sum of $3,000 with interest and costs. The appellant learned of that judgment only by receiving from the respondent a bill for $1,704.24, being &- half the capital and interest due under the above judgment; but it refused to pay and the respondent prayed the Board of Railway Commissioners to grant an order forcing the appellant to pay that amount. The respondent's claim was dismissed by the Board on the ground that it was not one which could be attributable to or based upon the order which is alleged to be the foundation for such a claim.
Sulbsequently the respondent brought suit against the appellant in the Superior Court for the sum of $1,852.76.
The action was maintained, and this judgment was affirmed by the Court of King's Bench. Both courts held that the words of the agreement above cited covered not only the actual wages of the workmen, or the obligation on the part of the appellant to pay one half of those wages, but also the obligation to pay one half of what might be called an accessory expense of the employment.
The appellant alleged that these judgments did not proceed upon an interpretation which the wording of the order would justify, but had the effect of rendering it liable for expenses which had not been foreseen when the order was issued; that the future rights of the parties were affected; that the decisions involve an interpretation of a public statute, the Railway Act of Canada, and that, as orders of the Board are made only when a matter of public interest is involved, their interpretation constitutes a question of public interest.
The Supreme Court of Canada, after hearing counsel and reserving judgment, granted the motion. Costs in the cause.
Motion granted. MOTION for special leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of King's Bench, appeal side, province of Quebec (1), affirming the judgment of the Superior Court and maintaining the respondent's action for $180.
The respondent brought an action against the appellant for the recovery of the sum of $180, representing the value of six interest coupons due on two debentures of $1,000 each issued by the appellant.
The appellant moved for special leave to appeal on the ground that, although the amount claimed by the action was only $180, the interest of the parties to the action and the amount in controversy was far in excess of this amount and comprised implicitly the capital amount of the two debentures and the interest coupons from March, 1923, to September, 1955; and that accordingly, " the matter in controversy on the appeal " involved " matters by which rights in future of the parties may be affected " and also consequentially an amount exceeding $1,000.
The Supreme Court of Canada, after hearing counsel and reserving judgment, dismissed the motion with costs, the court being of opinion that the circumstances of the case did not justify the granting of special leave to appeal. Motion dismissed with costs. Lafleur K.C. and Desbois K.C. for motion.
Perrault K.C. contra.
S.C.R.
British Columbia, affirming the judgment of the trial court and dismissing the appellant's action.
The action is for a declaration that a decree of judicial separation and one for permanent alimony are null and void on the ground that they were made without jurisdiction. These decrees were made in the court in the province having jurisdiction in divorce and matrimonial causes. Upon the appeal coming in for hearing the Court of of Appeal was unanimously of the opinion that it ought not to assume jurisdiction as in this case the decrees which were sought to be interfered with clearly dealt with matrimonial issues.
When the case was called before the Supreme Court of Canada, the court of its own motion having raised the question of its jurisdiction and appellant's counsel alleging he had been taken by surprise, as an order in chambers unappealed from had affirmed the jurisdiction, the hearing was adjourned until counsel had an opportunity of considering the question further.
Later on, after argument by counsel, the appeal was quashed; and the respondent was allowed same costs as if she had successfully appealed from the order affirming jurisdiction, but no other costs. Appeal quashed. Cassidy K.C. for appellant.
Fisher K.C. and Clarke for respondent.