Chagnon v. Normand

Chagnon v. Normand

Section 29(b) of R.S.C. c.135 does not confer jurisdiction on the Supreme Court where the question of a fee of office or future disqualification was not the matter really in controversy; collateral future disqualification resulting from a penalty judgment does not make the case appealable.

Citation
(1889) 16 SCR 661
Parties
Appellant/defendant: William Chagnon; Respondent/plaintiff: Alphonse Normand
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 December 1889
Procedural Posture
Appeal; Motion to Quash for Want of Jurisdiction / On Appeal From the Court of Queen's Bench (appeal Side) for Lower Canada; Motion to Quash Appeal
Outcome
Appeal quashed with costs
Legal Topics
Disqualification From Office, Penalties for Bribery, Supreme Court Jurisdiction, Fee of Office, Future Rights
Source Language
English
Appellate Jurisdiction Election Law Statutory Interpretation Disqualification From Office Penalties for Bribery Supreme Court Jurisdiction Fee of Office Future Rights

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Chagnon

Appellant/defendant

Alphonse Normand

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Appeal; Motion to Quash for Want of Jurisdiction / On Appeal From the Court of Queen's Bench (appeal Side) for Lower Canada; Motion to Quash Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.29(b) of R.S.C. c.135 gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction where an action for penalties may have the collateral effect of disqualifying a person from office for a period in the future
  2. 2 Whether a consequence of a judgment (future disqualification or loss of fee of office) renders the case appealable when the matter of the fee or future right was not actually in controversy

Ratio Decidendi

Section 29(b) of R.S.C. c.135 does not confer jurisdiction on the Supreme Court where the question of a fee of office or future disqualification was not the matter really in controversy; collateral future disqualification resulting from a penalty judgment does not make the case appealable.

Court Disposition

Appeal quashed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal quashed with costs