Imperial Steel Corporation Ltd. v. Bitter

Imperial Steel Corporation Ltd. v. Bitter

Currie, not being a party in the court below and having failed to intervene under Rule 60, had no status to take part in the appeal; further, discontinuance must be effected by the formal notice prescribed by s.80 of the Supreme Court Act and an informal letter was insufficient; accordingly the appeal was dismissed as lacking substance though not formally discontinued.

Citation
[1925] SCR 703
Parties
Appellant / Defendant: Imperial Steel Corporation Ltd.; Appellant (would‑be Intervener): J.A. Currie; Respondent: H.A. Bitter; Respondent / Trustee: Imperial Trust Company of Canada; Plaintiff / Respondent: Frederick Arthur Watson
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 November 1925
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario; Motion to Quash and Final Hearing
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; one appeal quashed for want of jurisdiction; appeal in the Watson action dismissed as frivolous and vexatious; dismissed without costs.
Legal Topics
Intervention, Discontinuance, Supreme Court Procedure, Appointment of Receiver, Equitable Execution, Jurisdiction
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Equity Trusts Receivership Appeal Intervention Discontinuance Supreme Court Procedure +3 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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Imperial Steel Corporation Ltd.

Appellant / Defendant

J.A. Currie

Appellant (would‑be Intervener)

H.A. Bitter

Respondent

Imperial Trust Company of Canada

Respondent / Trustee

Frederick Arthur Watson

Plaintiff / Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario; Motion to Quash and Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a person who was not a party below and who provided security for an appeal has status to intervene on appeal without complying with Rule 60
  2. 2 Whether an informal letter from solicitors constitutes a discontinuance under s.80 of the Supreme Court Act
  3. 3 Whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal concerning appointment of a receiver by equitable execution

Ratio Decidendi

Currie, not being a party in the court below and having failed to intervene under Rule 60, had no status to take part in the appeal; further, discontinuance must be effected by the formal notice prescribed by s.80 of the Supreme Court Act and an informal letter was insufficient; accordingly the appeal was dismissed as lacking substance though not formally discontinued.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; one appeal quashed for want of jurisdiction; appeal in the Watson action dismissed as frivolous and vexatious; dismissed without costs.

Orders

  • Appeal from order appointing Trust & Guarantee Co. trustee quashed for want of jurisdiction
  • Appeal in Watson action for realization of mortgage security and appointment of receiver dismissed as lacking substance