Hartin et al. v. May et al.

Hartin et al. v. May et al.

The Court held it had jurisdiction because the Court of Appeal's determination that the res judicata plea failed finally determined a substantive right of the parties and thus qualified as a 'final judgment' under s.2(b) of the Supreme Court Act; accordingly the motion to quash was dismissed.

Citation
[1944] SCR 278
Parties
Appellant: Hartin et al.; Respondent: May et al.
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 June 1944
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Motion to Quash Appeal for Want of Jurisdiction; Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for British Columbia
Outcome
Motion to quash dismissed with costs; Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
Legal Topics
Final Judgment, Interlocutory Vs Final, Res Judicata, Supreme Court Act S.2(b)
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Appeal Res Judicata Jurisdiction Final Judgment Interlocutory Vs Final Supreme Court Act S.2(b)

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hartin et al.

Appellant

May et al.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Motion to Quash Appeal for Want of Jurisdiction; Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for British Columbia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal's judgment was a 'final judgment' under Supreme Court Act R.S.C. 1927, c.35, s.2(b)
  2. 2 Whether the appeal should be quashed for want of jurisdiction
  3. 3 Whether the determination of res judicata constituted a final adjudication of the parties' substantive rights

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held it had jurisdiction because the Court of Appeal's determination that the res judicata plea failed finally determined a substantive right of the parties and thus qualified as a 'final judgment' under s.2(b) of the Supreme Court Act; accordingly the motion to quash was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Motion to quash dismissed with costs; Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

Orders

  • Motion to quash dismissed with costs.
  • Supreme Court held it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal.