Grimsby Park Co. v. Irving

Grimsby Park Co. v. Irving

The Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction: the disputed admission fee was a private toll not a 'general or public' duty under s.48(d), and the dispute over access did not directly raise the title to real estate or an interest therein under s.48(a); accordingly the appeal was quashed for want of jurisdiction.

Citation
(1908) 41 SCR 35
Parties
Appellant (defendant): Grimsby Park Company; Respondent (plaintiff): William H. Irving
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 December 1908
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / On Appeal From the Court of Appeal for Ontario; Jurisdictional Question Before the Supreme Court of Canada
Outcome
Appeal quashed for want of jurisdiction
Legal Topics
Right of Access/easement, Admission Fee/toll, Appeal Jurisdiction Under Supreme Court Act S.48, Construction of Corporate By‑law
Source Language
English
Property Law Corporate Law Civil Procedure Statutory Interpretation Right of Access/easement Admission Fee/toll Appeal Jurisdiction Under Supreme Court Act S.48 Construction of Corporate By‑law

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Grimsby Park Company

Appellant (defendant)

William H. Irving

Respondent (plaintiff)

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / On Appeal From the Court of Appeal for Ontario; Jurisdictional Question Before the Supreme Court of Canada

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction under R.S.C. 1906 s.48(a) because title to real estate or some interest therein was in question
  2. 2 Whether s.48(d) covered the defendant's admission fee as an annual or other rent, customary or other duty or fee, or a like demand of a general or public nature affecting future rights
  3. 3 Whether the company could, by statute and by‑law, impose an admission fee on the lessee's right of access

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction: the disputed admission fee was a private toll not a 'general or public' duty under s.48(d), and the dispute over access did not directly raise the title to real estate or an interest therein under s.48(a); accordingly the appeal was quashed for want of jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Appeal quashed for want of jurisdiction

Orders

  • Appeal quashed without costs