Cousins et al. v. Harding et al.

Cousins et al. v. Harding et al.

The Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction and the appeal was quashed because cumulation of wage claims under s.22 of the Fair Wages Act does not change appellate jurisdictional requirements; each claim must meet the $2,000 threshold and the eleven claims in question did not, their aggregate in the appeal being below $2,000.

Citation
[1940] SCR 442
Parties
Appellants (defendants): Ernest A. Cousins and others; Respondents (plaintiffs): Jack Harding and others
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 December 1940
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Motion to Quash Appeal Before the Supreme Court of Canada (on Appeal From the Court of King's Bench, Quebec)
Outcome
Motion granted; appeal quashed with costs.
Legal Topics
Jurisdictional Monetary Threshold, Cumulation of Claims, Permissive Joinder Under Provincial Statute, Appealability
Source Language
English
Appeal Labour and Employment Civil Procedure Statutory Interpretation Jurisdiction Jurisdictional Monetary Threshold Cumulation of Claims Permissive Joinder Under Provincial Statute +1 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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ernest A. Cousins and others

Appellants (defendants)

Jack Harding and others

Respondents (plaintiffs)

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Motion to Quash Appeal Before the Supreme Court of Canada (on Appeal From the Court of King's Bench, Quebec)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether joinder/cumulation of multiple employees' wage claims under a provincial statute affects the Supreme Court's monetary jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether an appeal lies when individual claims are each below the jurisdictional amount even if the original combined claim exceeded that amount
  3. 3 Whether s.22 of the Fair Wages Act (Quebec) makes cumulation compulsory or merely permissive for jurisdictional purposes

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction and the appeal was quashed because cumulation of wage claims under s.22 of the Fair Wages Act does not change appellate jurisdictional requirements; each claim must meet the $2,000 threshold and the eleven claims in question did not, their aggregate in the appeal being below $2,000.

Court Disposition

Motion granted; appeal quashed with costs.

Orders

  • Motion to quash granted with costs
  • Appeal quashed with costs