Ottawa (City) v. Hunter

Ottawa (City) v. Hunter

The Court held that for Ontario appeals under 60 & 61 Vict. c.34 the amount in controversy must be the amount in dispute in the appeal (i.e. the amount before this Court) and that paragraph (f) cannot be construed to override or repeal the express 'in the appeal' limitation in paragraph (c); accordingly the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction and the appeal was quashed with costs.

Citation
(1900) 31 SCR 7
Parties
Appellant (defendant): Corporation of the City of Ottawa; Respondent (plaintiff): Alexander Hunter
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 October 1900
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario; Motion to Quash Appeal for Want of Jurisdiction
Outcome
Motion allowed; appeal quashed with costs.
Legal Topics
Amount in Controversy, Jurisdiction of Appellate Court, Construction of Statutes, Repugnancy
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Appellate Jurisdiction Statutory Interpretation Amount in Controversy Jurisdiction of Appellate Court Construction of Statutes Repugnancy

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

Parties

Corporation of the City of Ottawa

Appellant (defendant)

Alexander Hunter

Respondent (plaintiff)

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario; Motion to Quash Appeal for Want of Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the amount in controversy for Ontario appeals is the sum originally demanded or the amount in dispute in the appeal
  2. 2 Whether paragraph (f) of s.1 of 60 & 61 Vict. c.34 is repugnant to paragraph (c) and therefore inoperative
  3. 3 Whether the words 'in the appeal' in paragraph (c) limit this Court's jurisdiction and render the appeal incompetent

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that for Ontario appeals under 60 & 61 Vict. c.34 the amount in controversy must be the amount in dispute in the appeal (i.e. the amount before this Court) and that paragraph (f) cannot be construed to override or repeal the express 'in the appeal' limitation in paragraph (c); accordingly the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction and the appeal was quashed with costs.

Court Disposition

Motion allowed; appeal quashed with costs.

Orders

  • Motion to quash appeal allowed
  • Appeal quashed with costs