Morley v. Forster et al.

Morley v. Forster et al.

The Court had no power in the circumstances to order approval of the security or to excuse compliance with the Rules; under s.70 the proper function is to inquire into sufficiency of tendered security, and because leave to appeal had been refused the present applications must be dismissed with costs, though the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1949] SCR 749
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: George W. Morley; Respondents / Defendants: Harvey Forster et al.
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 October 1949
Procedural Posture
Motion Concerning Approval of Security on Appeal / Motion to Renew Application for Approval of Security; Leave to Appeal Previously Refused
Outcome
Applications dismissed with costs; prior application for leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Section 70 Supreme Court Act, Approval of Security, Leave to Appeal, Jurisdiction
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Appeal Costs Statutory Interpretation Section 70 Supreme Court Act Approval of Security Leave to Appeal Jurisdiction

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

George W. Morley

Appellant / Plaintiff

Harvey Forster et al.

Respondents / Defendants

Procedural Posture

Motion Concerning Approval of Security on Appeal / Motion to Renew Application for Approval of Security; Leave to Appeal Previously Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether this Court can approve security or excuse compliance with Rules for filing certificate of security
  2. 2 Whether the appellant should be allowed to renew application to have security approved by Court of Appeal or a judge thereof
  3. 3 Whether appellant is being deprived of a right to appeal by refusal to deal with security

Ratio Decidendi

The Court had no power in the circumstances to order approval of the security or to excuse compliance with the Rules; under s.70 the proper function is to inquire into sufficiency of tendered security, and because leave to appeal had been refused the present applications must be dismissed with costs, though the appellant may seek approval before the Court of Appeal or a judge thereof if entitled to appeal as of right.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed with costs; prior application for leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Applications dismissed with costs.
  • Leave to appeal was previously refused by this Court on October 17, 1949.