In re North Shore Trading Co. / Providence Washington Assurance Co. v. Gagnon & Cloutier,

MIGNAULT J.-In this case, application on behalf of the Providence Washington Assurance Co. was to-day made to me for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Quebec Court of King's Bench, in a matter arising under the Bankruptcy Act. This judgment was pronounced on the 14th of January, so that this application is made on the thirty-first day after the judgment, and therefore is not within the time specified by Bankruptcy rule 72.

Moreover, fourteen days notice of the application was not given *PRESENT:-Mignault J. in chambers.

to the adverse party. I have no power to extend the time

(Boivin v. Larue (1); In re Hudson Fashion Shoppe, Ltd.

(2) ) and must dismiss the application.

When the Boivin Case (1) was before me, no reference was made by counsel to s. 68, subs. 5, of the Bankruptcy Act, which empowers the court (which means the court which is invested with original jurisdiction in bankruptcy . under the Act: s. 2, subs. where by the Act or by the General Rules, the time for doing any act or thing is lim- lignault J. ited, to extend the time either before or after the expiration thereof, upon such terms, if any, as the court may think fit to impose.

My attention has been called to an order made by Mr.

Justice Fisher, sitting in bankruptcy, in In re Hudson

Fashion Shoppe Ltd. (2) (the same case in which an application for leave to appeal was made to the Chief Justice of this Court, and dismissed because fourteen days notice of the application had not been given (3) ) extending the time for applying to a judge of this court for leave to appeal. Mr. Justice Fisher states that my Lord, the Chief

Justice, dismissed the application for leave made to him, without prejudice

I have decided to follow the decision of the Chief Justice, and to insert this reservation in my order of dismissal of the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of King's Bench.

I -must say, however, that I think General Rule 72 should be amended so as to give a judge of this Court the power to extend the time for applying for leave to appeal, either before or after its expiration. It seems incongruous, and it adds to the costs as well as delays the proceedings, to oblige an applicant to go back to the trial court to obtain

S.C.R.