Canada Judgment

Supreme Court of Canada

Adegbola v. Rivard et al.

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The appeal, filed October 1976 but not brought for hearing within one year, was abandoned under Rule 59; no exceptional circumstances justified the Court exercising its discretion to prevent abandonment, so the appeal was dismissed.

Court disposition

Appeal held abandoned and dismissed under Rule 59 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed as abandoned pursuant to Rule 59.

02

Material facts

Parties

Mudashiru Adegbola

Appellant Counsel: Julius H. Grey

L. Rivard

Respondent Counsel: Suzanne Marcoux-Paquette; Gaspard Côté, Q.C.

Minister of Manpower and Immigration

Respondent Counsel: Suzanne Marcoux-Paquette; Gaspard Côté, Q.C.

Attorney General of Canada

Mis En Cause

Amounts and remedies

  • Years Between Filing and Hearing: 3

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Appeal / On Appeal From the Federal Court of Appeal; Final Decision on Abandonment Under Rule 59

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The appellant contended the appeal should not be treated as abandoned and sought relief from the strict one‑year rule or exercise of discretion to proceed.
Respondent
The respondents argued the appeal was abandoned because it was not brought for hearing within one year as required by Rule 59 and should be dismissed.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, Rule 59

    An appeal is abandoned if it is not brought for hearing within one year pursuant to Rule 59.

  2. 02

    Supreme Court of Canada practice as applied in this judgment

    The Court may in exceptional circumstances decline to treat an appeal as abandoned, but such discretion is exercised sparingly.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The appeal, filed October 1976 but not brought for hearing within one year, was abandoned under Rule 59; no exceptional circumstances justified the Court exercising its discretion to prevent abandonment, so the appeal was dismissed.

Court disposition

Appeal held abandoned and dismissed under Rule 59 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada.

  • Appeal dismissed as abandoned pursuant to Rule 59.

Source and reliance status

Supreme Court of Canada · 8 May 1980

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Supreme Court of Canada

Judgment· 8 May 1980

[1980] 1 SCR 758

Adegbola v. Rivard et al. Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1980-05-08 Report [1980] 1 SCR 758 Judges Martland, Ronald; Ritchie, Roland Almon; Dickson, Robert George Brian; Beetz, Jean; McIntyre, William Rogers; Chouinard, Julien; Lamer, Antonio On appeal from Federal Court of Appeal Subjects Courts Decision Content Supreme Court of Canada Adegbola v. Rivard et al., [1980] 1 S.C.R. 758 Date: 1980-05-08 Mudashiru Adegbola Appellant; and L. Rivard and Minister of Manpower and Immigration Respondents; and Attorney General of Canada Mis en cause. 1980: May 8. Present: Martland, Ritchie, Dickson, Beetz, McIntyre, Chouinard and Lamer JJ.

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL Courts—Practice—Appeal abandoned by delay—Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, Rule 59. In this case, the notice of appeal was served on October 13, 1976, and filed on October 19, 1976. However the appeal had not been brought for hearing by the appellant before January 8, 1980, therefore was not within the one year period pursuant to Rule 59. APPEAL from a judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal affirming a deportation order made by the Special Inquiry Officer Rivard, on June 1, 1976. Appeal held to be abandoned. Julius H. Grey, for the appellant. Suzanne Marcoux-Paquette and Gaspard Côté, Q.C., for the respondents. The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by MARTLAND J.—We are all of the opinion that this appeal has been abandoned by virtue of Rule 59 of the Rules of the Supreme Court. In the circumstances of this case, we are not prepared to order otherwise. Appeal held abandoned. Solicitor for the appellant: Julius H. Grey, Montreal. Solicitors for the respondents: Suzanne Marcoux-Paquette and Gaspard Côté, Montreal.

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, Rule 59

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.