Johnston v. Canadian Credit Men's Trust Association

' *Feb. 2,3. *Mar. 1. AND

CANADIAN CREDIT MEN'S TRUST

ASSOCIATION (PLAINTIFF)

........

ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

Dunr J.-The section to be construed is in these words, We can find no ground in what is known as the ejusdem generis doctrine, for limiting the term " officer " in such a way as to exclude all officers who are not judicial officers from its denotation. The rule is a working rule of construction which, properly applied, is of assistance in elucidating the intention of the legislature; although there is too much reason to think that sometimes the result of applying it has been to override that intention. In the present case, we think the governing words are " for any act or thing by him done under the supposed authority of the statute or statutory provision of the province or of the Dominion." It may be that the context would justify the limitation of the scope of the term " officer," so as to restrict its application to public officers; but, beyond that, we can think of no limitation to which it is properly subject, other than that expressed by the words we have just quoted. The argument that only judicial officers are contemplated logically involves the contention that an act or thing done by any person, in order to fall within the ambit of the o . section, must be an act or thing in its nature judicial. Now we find it quite impossible to say that a county judge or a justice of the peace, performing executive duties under a statute, and many such duties are imposed upon J. such functionaries, is not within the protection of section 9. We can find no reason, no shadow indeed of justification, for so limiting the plain words of the enactment. That being the case, we can perceive no ground for holding that a public officer, not belonging to any of the specific classes of officers enumerated, is not, when performing executive duties, within the descriptive words of the section, and, subject to the conditions prescribed, entitled to claim the benefit of it. As to the title of the Act, it is to be observed that the title, taken from R.S.B.C., 1924, is " An Act respecting the justices of the peace and other magistrates."

These words do not, when read according to common usage, include judges; and they do not, obviously, indicate adequately the character of the provisions of the statute. The title does not, in our view, materially assist in the construction of section 9.

We do not think it is convenient to deal with the contention that the action should be dismissed on the ground that the determination of this question of law virtually disposes of the controversy between the parties. The action is not exclusively based upon the allegation that the relevant provisions of the Fisheries Act were ultra vires. It is, in part, based upon the proposition that, if intra vires, the Fisheries Act would afford no protection. No application was made in the court below to strike out the pleading as disclosing no reasonable cause of action, or to dismiss the action as vexatious, and in the factum the only point substantially argued is that just dealt with; and, although the statement of claim seems, in more than one respect, to be objectionable, we think we ought to limit the judgment on this appeal to setting aside the judgments below and declaring that the appellants are " officers " within the meaning of the Magistrates Act.

The respondents, however, must undertake to go to trial within a reasonable time; the precise date can be fixed on the settlement of the minutes. S.C.R.]

OF

CANADA,

THE CANADIAN NATIONAL RAIL- W AY S .............................

THE BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY

OF CANADA

THE CANADIAN NATIONAL RAIL- W AYS .............................

THE MONTREAL LIGHT, HEAT &

POWER CONSOLIDATED,

THE CANADIAN NATIONAL RAIL- W AYS .............................

}

}

}

}

}

}

J THE CANADIAN NATIONAL RAIL- W AY S ............................. THE MONTREAL TRAMWAYS COM-' PANY THE MONTREAL TRAM- WAYS COMMISSION THE CANADIAN NATIONAL RAIL- WAYS ............................. f THE MONTREAL TRAMWAYS COM- PANY THE MONTREAL TRAM- WAYS COMMISSION ST. AN- J... THE CANADIAN NATIONAL RAIL- W AYS ............................. THE BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF CANADA ST. THE CANADIAN NATIONAL RAIL- WAYS .......................

THE BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF CANADA THE TORONTO, HAMILTON AND BUFFALO

RAILWAY

COMPANY THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF HAMILTON ............. } } I J