Peterborough West Election Case (Stratton v. Burnham)

Peterborough West Election Case (Stratton v. Burnham)

The court held that s.18(2)'s substitutional service is not exclusive of other methods; a judge has jurisdiction to extend the time for service after the statutory period in appropriate circumstances and to order substitutional service under the court's discretion and applicable local rules (here Rule 146), and service on the respondent's clerk pursuant to the judge's order was valid and gave the court jurisdiction.

Citation
(1909) 41 SCR 410
Parties
Appellant: James Robert Stratton; Respondent: John Hampden Burnham
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 March 1909
Procedural Posture
Controverted Election / Election Petition / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Substitutional Service, Extension of Time, Statutory Interpretation of Controverted Elections Act
Source Language
English
Elections Procedure Service of Process Substitutional Service Extension of Time Statutory Interpretation of Controverted Elections Act

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

Parties

James Robert Stratton

Appellant

John Hampden Burnham

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Controverted Election / Election Petition / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether substitutional service under s.18(2) of the Controverted Elections Act is exclusive
  2. 2 Whether a judge has jurisdiction to extend the time for service after the statutory period has expired
  3. 3 Whether substitutional service on the respondent's clerk pursuant to court order and local rule 146 constituted valid service

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that s.18(2)'s substitutional service is not exclusive of other methods; a judge has jurisdiction to extend the time for service after the statutory period in appropriate circumstances and to order substitutional service under the court's discretion and applicable local rules (here Rule 146), and service on the respondent's clerk pursuant to the judge's order was valid and gave the court jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Order of Mr. Justice Britton extending time for service to December 12, 1908 and authorizing substitutional service on the respondent's clerk upheld.