Raphael v. Maclaren

Raphael v. Maclaren

The Registrar and Chief Justice held that s.29(b) of the Supreme and Exchequer Courts Act does not confer jurisdiction to appeal in respect of purely pecuniary future rights that are not rights in or analogous to land or annual rents; therefore the application for approval of security for costs for an appeal under that subsection must be refused.

Citation
(1897) 27 SCR 319
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Thomas Raphael; Defendants/respondents: David Maclaren and others
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 May 1897
Procedural Posture
Appeal; Application for Security for Costs Ahead of Proposed Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada / Registrar Motion in Chambers to Approve Bond for Costs; Decision Reviewed by Chief Justice on Appeal From Registrar
Outcome
Motion refused; Registrar's decision confirmed by King J.; no jurisdiction under s.29(b) to entertain proposed appeal regarding purely pecuniary future trust income; security for costs not approved.
Legal Topics
Appealability Under Statute, Future Pecuniary Rights, Trustees' Investment and Accounting Duties, Security for Costs, Noscitur a Sociis Construction, Res Judicata
Source Language
English
Appeal Trusts and Estates Civil Procedure Statutory Interpretation Equity Appealability Under Statute Future Pecuniary Rights Trustees' Investment and Accounting Duties +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Raphael

Plaintiff/appellant

David Maclaren and others

Defendants/respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal; Application for Security for Costs Ahead of Proposed Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada / Registrar Motion in Chambers to Approve Bond for Costs; Decision Reviewed by Chief Justice on Appeal From Registrar

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court of Canada has jurisdiction under s.29(b) of the Supreme and Exchequer Courts Act to entertain an appeal affecting future pecuniary rights of beneficiaries
  2. 2 Whether future pecuniary rights to trust income are 'other matters or things' within s.29(b) and thus analogous to rights in land or annual rents
  3. 3 Whether trustees were bound to procure a 5% return or only to account for the actual income received

Ratio Decidendi

The Registrar and Chief Justice held that s.29(b) of the Supreme and Exchequer Courts Act does not confer jurisdiction to appeal in respect of purely pecuniary future rights that are not rights in or analogous to land or annual rents; therefore the application for approval of security for costs for an appeal under that subsection must be refused.

Court Disposition

Motion refused; Registrar's decision confirmed by King J.; no jurisdiction under s.29(b) to entertain proposed appeal regarding purely pecuniary future trust income; security for costs not approved.

Orders

  • Motion refused with costs
  • Registrar's decision confirmed