are based on concurrent appreciations of the special facts In re of the case rather than on a particular construction of the relevant statutes, or the application of any new point of Coas'. LTD.
law.
Hoowrrz
The petition will therefore be dismissed with costs. Rinfret J.
IWAN KOWAL (PLAINTIFF) ...........
APPELLANT; Dec.
AND
NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD
COMPANY
(DEFENDANT) ............
RESPONDENT. ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH, APPEAL SIDE, PROVINCE OF QUEBEC
Appeal-Jurisdiction-Judgment dismissing petition in revocation of judgment-" Final judgment Amount in controversy "-Appeal per saltum-Application to adduce new evidence before Supreme Court of Canada-Negligence-Liability-Money offered and paid to injured-Acknowledgment of liability-Supreme Court Act, ss. 2 (e), 87, Section 68, as amended by 18-19 Geo. V, c. 9, s. 8-Art. 1184 C.C. P. A judgment of the Court of King's Bench, affirming a judgment of the Superior Court which had dismissed a petition in revocation of judgment, is a "final judgment" within the provisions of section 2 (e) of the Superior Court Act Act. Hudon v. Tremblay ([19311 S.C.R. 624) discussed.
On an appeal from a judgment dismissing a petition in revocation of judgment and merely refusing leave to reopen the case and to "replace the parties in the same position as they were in before the fact which gave rise to the petition " (art. 1184 C.C.P.), there is no " amount or value
* * * in controversy in the appeal "; and the appellate court lacks in jurisdiction to grant special leave of appeal to this Court per saltum. (Section 37 of the Supreme Court Act). The provision whereby the Supreme Court of Canada may " receive further evidence upon any question of fact " (section 68, Supreme Court Act, as amended by 18-19 Geo. V, c. 9, s. 3), while leaving the matter to the discretion of the Court, may be taken advantage of only " on special grounds and by special leave ". An application to adduce further evidence directed solely to affect the credibility of witnesses is clearly not an application of the nature contemplated by the provision of the Act. Moreover, in this case, the question whether the evidence brought out in the petition in revocation could be relied on by the appellant had been finally decided and had become res judicata between the parties.
PRESENT:-Duff CJ. and Rinfret, Lamont, Smith, Cannon and Crocket JJ.
**PRESENT:-Rinfret, Lamont, Cannon, Crocket and Hughes JJ.
Statutes and regulations cited
-
Unresolved citations
- ss. 2
- Section 68
- s. 8
- section 2