City of Sidney v. Wright

J.-When this appeal was called, a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction was made by the respondent. The appeal was heard on the merits and judgment on the motion reserved.

The point of jurisdiction depends upon whether or not within section 39 (a) of the Supreme Court Act "the amount or value of the matter in controversy in the appeal exceeds the sum of $2,000." The action was brought for an injunction *to restrain the City of Sydney from proceeding with a tax sale of a strip of land adjoining property owned by the respondent. The taxes to which the proceeds of the sale could be applied were not more than $1,500. The land was assessed for $7,200 and for the purposes of deciding the question raised I will assume that sum to be its value. Further relief claimed was a declaration that the strip had, Rand by dedication, become a public highway. The Courts below upheld the plaintiff's contention.

What, then, is the matter in controversy in this Court? It is the right of the City to collect $1,500 of taxes through the sale of property. Then, as to "the amount or value", it is to the interest of the party appealing that we must look: Taschereau J., in Kinghorn -v. Larue (1).

What is that here? It is clearly the taxes, and their amount is the measure of value which determines the jurisdiction. For that conclusion we are not without authority.. The point is governed by Gendron v. McDougall (2).

There the plaintiff had obtained a judgment for $231 and in execution seized an immovable worth $2,000. The defendant filed an opposition 4 fin de distraire, claiming the land seized to be his property. Gendron contested that opposition but it was maintained. He then appealed to this Court which, on a challenge to the jurisdiction, held that the value of his interest in the appeal was $231 only. I see no difference in principle between that case and the present.

The appellant had applied to the Court of Appeal for special leave to bring the controversy to this Court but it was refused, and by consent the application was renewed before us. The case, however, is sui generis and is not, in my opinion, one in which special leave should be granted. The appeal should be quashed with costs to the respondent of one motion.

Appeal quashed, with costs to the respondent of a motion; the application for leave to appeal dismissed without costs.

S.C.R.]