St. John v. Fraser

St. John v. Fraser

Section 29 bars restraining proceedings against the Attorney‑General or his representative; the s.10 investigation is administrative and not a judicial proceeding, so there is no automatic right to cross‑examine every witness; therefore the investigator could lawfully continue and report to the Attorney‑General and the injunction was properly dissolved.

Citation
[1935] SCR 441
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: George St. John; Plaintiff/appellant: The Vancouver Stock and Bond Company Limited; Defendant/respondent (investigator): George L. Fraser; Defendant (joined): Attorney-General of British Columbia
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 June 1935
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil Injunction Under Securities Statute) / On Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for British Columbia; Challenge to Dissolution of Interim Injunction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; interim injunction dissolved.
Legal Topics
Investigatory Powers, Delegation of Authority, Natural Justice, Right to Cross Examine, Injunction, Statutory Immunity
Source Language
English
Securities Law Administrative Law Equity Investigatory Powers Delegation of Authority Natural Justice Right to Cross Examine Injunction +1 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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George St. John

Plaintiff/appellant

The Vancouver Stock and Bond Company Limited

Plaintiff/appellant

George L. Fraser

Defendant/respondent (investigator)

Attorney-General of British Columbia

Defendant (joined)

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil Injunction Under Securities Statute) / On Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for British Columbia; Challenge to Dissolution of Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the investigator could be restrained from proceeding with the statutory investigation or reporting to the Attorney-General
  2. 2 Whether persons whose status or reputation may be affected by an investigation have a right to notice and to cross-examine witnesses examined by the investigator
  3. 3 Whether s.29 of the Securities Frauds Prevention Act bars injunctive and other extraordinary remedies against the Attorney-General or his representative

Ratio Decidendi

Section 29 bars restraining proceedings against the Attorney‑General or his representative; the s.10 investigation is administrative and not a judicial proceeding, so there is no automatic right to cross‑examine every witness; therefore the investigator could lawfully continue and report to the Attorney‑General and the injunction was properly dissolved.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; interim injunction dissolved.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Interim injunction dissolved; respondent may continue the investigation and make findings or report to the Attorney‑General.