Balthazar v. Drouin

Balthazar v. Drouin

The appeal was quashed because the sole issue was a legal question—whether a conservatory attachment is an accessory procedure—which is not appreciable in money, and therefore the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction under s.39 since no amount or value was truly in controversy; sureties under article 938 did not convert the dispute into a monetary controversy sufficient to confer jurisdiction.

Citation
[1945] SCR 517
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Dame T. Balthazar; Respondent/defendant: Rosario Drouin
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 June 1945
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of King's Bench, Quebec
Outcome
Appeal quashed with costs
Legal Topics
Conservatory Attachment, Accessory Procedure, Amount in Controversy, Provisional Remedy, Security/sureties, Jurisdictional Threshold
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Appellate Jurisdiction Conservatory Attachment Accessory Procedure Amount in Controversy Provisional Remedy Security/sureties Jurisdictional Threshold

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

Parties

Dame T. Balthazar

Appellant/plaintiff

Rosario Drouin

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of King's Bench, Quebec

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a conservatory attachment can be taken out alone without a principal demand for pecuniary condemnation
  2. 2 Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction under s.39 of the Supreme Court Act absent an amount or value in controversy
  3. 3 Whether sureties given under article 938 create an amount in controversy for jurisdictional purposes

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was quashed because the sole issue was a legal question—whether a conservatory attachment is an accessory procedure—which is not appreciable in money, and therefore the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction under s.39 since no amount or value was truly in controversy; sureties under article 938 did not convert the dispute into a monetary controversy sufficient to confer jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Appeal quashed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal quashed
  • Respondent awarded costs of the appeal