Fiset v. Morin

Fiset v. Morin

The Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because there was no amount or value in controversy exceeding $2,000 as required by section 39 of the Supreme Court Act, and no special leave had been obtained; accordingly the motion to quash the appeal for want of jurisdiction must be granted. The Court did not decide the substantive legality of the security provided under provincial procedure rules.

Citation
[1945] SCR 520
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Ernest Fiset; Respondent/plaintiff: Donat Morin
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 June 1945
Procedural Posture
Appeal to Supreme Court / Motion to Quash for Want of Jurisdiction Following Judgment of Court of King's Bench Quashing Appellant's Appeal for Irregular Security
Outcome
Motion to quash appeal for want of jurisdiction granted; appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Appealability, Amount or Value in Controversy, Appeal Security, Civil Code of Procedure Articles 1213 1215a, Supreme Court Act Section 39
Source Language
English
Appeal Civil Procedure Security for Costs Jurisdiction Appealability Amount or Value in Controversy Appeal Security Civil Code of Procedure Articles 1213 1215a +1 more

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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ernest Fiset

Appellant/defendant

Donat Morin

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Appeal to Supreme Court / Motion to Quash for Want of Jurisdiction Following Judgment of Court of King's Bench Quashing Appellant's Appeal for Irregular Security

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal absent special leave and without a monetary value in controversy exceeding statutory threshold
  2. 2 Whether a cash pledge given in lieu of the statutory security under article 1214 C.P.C. is valid without prior fixing of the amount by a judge as required by article 1215a C.P.C.
  3. 3 Whether an order of a prothonotary under article 33 C.P.C. can supply the necessary fixation of pledge amount or otherwise validate the security

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because there was no amount or value in controversy exceeding $2,000 as required by section 39 of the Supreme Court Act, and no special leave had been obtained; accordingly the motion to quash the appeal for want of jurisdiction must be granted. The Court did not decide the substantive legality of the security provided under provincial procedure rules.

Court Disposition

Motion to quash appeal for want of jurisdiction granted; appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Motion to quash the appeal for want of jurisdiction granted with costs.