Laberge v. Equitable Life Assurance Co.

Laberge v. Equitable Life Assurance Co.

The majority held that s.3(4) of 54 & 55 Vict. c.25 requires the amount demanded in the statement of claim to determine Supreme Court jurisdiction, so the appeal was within jurisdiction despite the Superior Court judgment being for $285 and no cross-appeal having been taken.

Citation
(1894) 24 SCR 59
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Louis Laberge; Respondent/defendant: The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 November 1894
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Motion to Quash for Want of Jurisdiction on Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada
Outcome
Motion to quash refused with costs.
Legal Topics
Amount in Dispute, Statutory Interpretation, Cross Appeal, Appealability
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Appeal Jurisdiction Amount in Dispute Statutory Interpretation Cross Appeal Appealability

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Louis Laberge

Appellant/plaintiff

The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Motion to Quash for Want of Jurisdiction on Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction where the amount demanded exceeds the statutory threshold but the judgment recovered is for less
  2. 2 Construction and effect of s.3(4) of 54 & 55 Vict. c.25 regarding amount in dispute
  3. 3 Whether a plaintiff who did not take a cross-appeal can invoke the original demanded amount after a successful defendant's appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that s.3(4) of 54 & 55 Vict. c.25 requires the amount demanded in the statement of claim to determine Supreme Court jurisdiction, so the appeal was within jurisdiction despite the Superior Court judgment being for $285 and no cross-appeal having been taken.

Court Disposition

Motion to quash refused with costs.

Orders

  • Motion to quash appeal refused with costs.