L'Association St. Jean-Baptiste de Montréal v. Brault

(DE- APPELLANT; *Mar.

FNAT

*Mar. 8.

FENDANT)..

......................

AND

HENRI ALEXANDRE A. BRAULT

RESPONDENT. (PLAINTIFF) .......................

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT, SITTING IN REVIEW, AT MONTREAL.

Appeal-Jurisdiction - J -This is an appeal from the Court of Review.

The respondent moves to quash it on the ground that the enactment of the Dominion Parliament passed in giving the right to appeal from that court is unconstitutional and ultra vires. This motion cannot prevail.

We have enteitained a number of such appeals during the ten years that the enactment has been in force without any objection having been taken to our jurisdiction and it is too late now to ask us to decree that in all those cases our judgments are complete nullities.

Section 101 of the British North America Act, 1867, enacts that notwithstanding the exclusive jurisdiction given to the provincial legislatures over civil rights, the Parliament of Canada has the power to provide for the constitution, maintenance and organisation a general court of appeal for Canada, without restricting the power, as it does for additional courts of first instance, to the administration of laws of Canada. The respondent would contend that all the appeals heard in this from all over the Dominion, since its creation in 1875, in cases not governed by the federal laws, were determined without jurisdiction.

For, if parliament had not the power to authorise an appeal in such cases from the Court of Review, in Quebec, it had not the power to authorise it from the courts final jurisdiction in the other provinces.

Then we have often held that the provincial legislatures have not power to restrict in any way the jurisdiction of this court or to add to it. The Quebec Legislature had not the power to authorise an appeal to this court from the Court of Review, or from any of its courts. That being so, it follows that the Dominion parliament mast have that power.

The motion is dismissed with costs, and the appeal is allowed with costs.

L'AsSOCIA ST. GIROUARD J. dissented from the judgment of the JEAN-BAPo theTISTE majority of the court upon the merits for reasons already stated by him in his judgment in the former case of L'Association St. Jean-Baptiste de Montrial v.

Brault (1).

Motion to quash dismissed with costs;

appeal allowed with costs.

WILLIAM BELL (PLAINTIFF)... ........... APPELLANT;

AND

*March 6. GEORGE VIPOND, ET AL (DEFEND- RESPONDENTS.

-Mar 8. ANTS) .........

..................

ON APPEAL

FROM

THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH,

PROVINCE OF QUEBEC, APPEAL SIDE.

Appeal-Ddbats compte-Issues redditio n-A mount in controversy- Jurisdiction.

In an action en reddition de compte, where items in the account filed exceeding in the aggregate two thousand dollars have been contested, the Supreme Court of Canada has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal.

MOTION on behalf of the plaintiff that his security for appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada be allowed.

The motion came up on reference from a Judge in chambers to whom applicaticn had been made by way of appeal from the decision of the registrar refusing to allow the security. The circumstances of the

*PRESENT :-Taschereau,Gwynn e, Sedgewick, King and Girouard, JJ.

case are stated in His Lordship Mr. Justice Taschereau

Brooke for the motion.

Markey contra.

J.-This is motion by the plaintiff to allow his security for appeal to this court. His action concluded for reddition de compte, or in default thereof, for one thousand dollars.

The defendants, admitting their obligation to render the account, filed one amounting to over eight thousand dollars, claiming two hundred and forty-two dollars as the balance thereof in their favour. The plaintiff, by a contestation of that account, claimed to be entitled to an amount which, though not specified, yet, by his allegations, clearly amounted to a sum exceeding two thousand dollars, withdrawing expressly the alternative conclusion his declaration for one thousand dollars. The defendants joined issue on that contestation, not objecting to the withdrawal by the plaintiff of his alternative conclusion for the one thousand dollars. On that issue, the Superior Court rendered a judgment in favour of the plaintiff for two thousand one hundred and ninety-one dollars. The Court of Appeal reversed that judgment, and dismissed his action and his contestation of the defendants' account.

The defendants' objections to the plaintiff's right of appeal are unfounded. The amount demanded by the plaintiff and in controversy in the courts below and upon this appeal was and is clearly over two thousand dollars.

The motion is allowed with costs.

Motion allowed with costs.