Marcoux v. L'Heureux

Marcoux v. L'Heureux

The appeal was dismissed because the 1909 statutory reduction of the notice period to thirty days was procedural and applicable; the deputy minister lawfully had authority to adjudicate and sign the cancellation and, on the evidence, he had before him the essential facts showing non‑compliance with residence and cultivation conditions so the cancellation was valid despite errors in a subordinate's report; therefore the cancellation was not void.

Citation
(1921) 63 SCR 263
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Elie Marcoux; Respondent / Defendant: Louis L'Heureux; Intervenant / Respondent: The Attorney General for Quebec
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 December 1921
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Court of King's Bench, Province of Quebec / Decision on Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (final Judgment)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Colonization Lot, Location Ticket, Cancellation of Licence, Retrospective Effect of Statute, Audi Alteram Partem (right to Be Heard), Powers of Deputy Minister, Notice Period for Cancellation
Source Language
English
Property Law Administrative Law Statutory Interpretation Procedural Law Public Law Colonization Lot Location Ticket Cancellation of Licence +4 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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elie Marcoux

Appellant / Plaintiff

Louis L'Heureux

Respondent / Defendant

The Attorney General for Quebec

Intervenant / Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Court of King's Bench, Province of Quebec / Decision on Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (final Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the amendment reducing notice from 60 to 30 days applied to pre-existing location tickets
  2. 2 Whether the deputy minister had legal authority to order and sign the cancellation
  3. 3 Whether the licensee was afforded the statutory and common law right to be heard (audi alteram partem) before cancellation

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the 1909 statutory reduction of the notice period to thirty days was procedural and applicable; the deputy minister lawfully had authority to adjudicate and sign the cancellation and, on the evidence, he had before him the essential facts showing non‑compliance with residence and cultivation conditions so the cancellation was valid despite errors in a subordinate's report; therefore the cancellation was not void.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.