St. James Election Case (Brunet v. Bergeron)

St. James Election Case (Brunet v. Bergeron)

The May 31 order either fixed the thirtieth juridical day after the Supreme Court judgment as the trial date or, at minimum, operated as a stay of proceedings that tolled the six‑month statutory period; excluding the time while the appeal and stay were pending, the trial begun on December 4 was within six months of filing and the Election Court had jurisdiction; appeal on jurisdiction dismissed and final result on disqualification affirmed by an equally divided court.

Citation
(1903) 33 SCR 137
Parties
Appellant: Joseph Brunet; Respondent (petitioner): Joseph Gedeon Horace Bergeron
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 March 1903
Procedural Posture
Controverted Election Petition (appeal) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada on Jurisdictional Point; Merits Heard Subsequently
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Election Court judgment annulling election and unseating and disqualifying appellant affirmed; appeal on personal charges resulted in equal division and stands dismissed.
Legal Topics
Controverted Election, Stay of Proceedings, Jurisdiction, Statute of Limitations (six Month Rule), Disqualification, Corrupt Practices, Bribery
Source Language
English
Elections Law Controverted Election Stay of Proceedings Jurisdiction Statute of Limitations (six Month Rule) Disqualification Corrupt Practices Bribery

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

Parties

Joseph Brunet

Appellant

Joseph Gedeon Horace Bergeron

Respondent (petitioner)

Procedural Posture

Controverted Election Petition (appeal) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada on Jurisdictional Point; Merits Heard Subsequently

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial of the election petition was commenced within six months of filing under s.32 of the Controverted Elections Act
  2. 2 Whether the order of May 31 operated to fix a trial date or, at minimum, to stay proceedings pending appeal so as to toll the six‑month period
  3. 3 Whether the Election Court thus had jurisdiction to try the petition on December 4

Ratio Decidendi

The May 31 order either fixed the thirtieth juridical day after the Supreme Court judgment as the trial date or, at minimum, operated as a stay of proceedings that tolled the six‑month statutory period; excluding the time while the appeal and stay were pending, the trial begun on December 4 was within six months of filing and the Election Court had jurisdiction; appeal on jurisdiction dismissed and final result on disqualification affirmed by an equally divided court.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Election Court judgment annulling election and unseating and disqualifying appellant affirmed; appeal on personal charges resulted in equal division and stands dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Registrar to report judgment to the Speaker of the House of Commons