Hamel v. Hamel

Hamel v. Hamel

The Supreme Court quashed the appeal because the judgment appealed from was interlocutory (a decision on a petition to intervene) and the Supreme Court Act does not confer jurisdiction to hear appeals from such interlocutory orders; therefore no appeal lies to this Court and the motion to quash succeeds.

Citation
(1896) 26 SCR 17
Parties
Appellant: EUGENE HAMEL; Respondent: AUGUSTE HAMEL
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 February 1896
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Motion to Quash From Interlocutory Judgment
Outcome
Appeal quashed with costs.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Judgment, Intervention, Right to Appeal, Jurisdiction of Supreme Court
Source Language
English

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

Parties

EUGENE HAMEL

Appellant

AUGUSTE HAMEL

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Motion to Quash From Interlocutory Judgment

  1. 1 Whether an appeal lies to the Supreme Court from a judgment on a petition for leave to intervene when the underlying proceedings are interlocutory
  2. 2 Whether the Supreme Court Act permits appeals from interlocutory judgments granted by provincial courts in this context
  3. 3 Whether the petitioner's status as mis-en-cause prevents intervention and necessitates a separate action

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court quashed the appeal because the judgment appealed from was interlocutory (a decision on a petition to intervene) and the Supreme Court Act does not confer jurisdiction to hear appeals from such interlocutory orders; therefore no appeal lies to this Court and the motion to quash succeeds.

Court Disposition

Appeal quashed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal quashed with costs.