Fréchette v. Simmoneau

Fréchette v. Simmoneau

The appeal was quashed because the matter in dispute did not involve $2,000 or more and did not directly concern title to land or annual rents within the meaning of s.29(b) of R. S. C.; collateral effects cannot be relied on to establish jurisdiction, therefore the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

Citation
(1900) 31 SCR 12
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: James Fréchette; Respondent / Defendant: Augustin Simmoneau
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 October 1900
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada — Motion to Quash for Want of Jurisdiction (appeal From Court of Queen's Bench, Quebec)
Outcome
Appeal quashed for want of jurisdiction
Legal Topics
Jurisdictional Threshold, Amount in Dispute, Simulated Deed, Lease Annulment, Title to Land, Appealability
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Property Law Appellate Jurisdiction Jurisdictional Threshold Amount in Dispute Simulated Deed Lease Annulment Title to Land +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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Fréchette

Appellant / Plaintiff

Augustin Simmoneau

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada — Motion to Quash for Want of Jurisdiction (appeal From Court of Queen's Bench, Quebec)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court of Canada has jurisdiction under R. S. C. c.135 s.29(b) when the amount in dispute is under $2,000
  2. 2 Whether an action to annul a simulated lease by a lessee claiming ownership constitutes a question respecting title to land or annual rents within s.29(b)
  3. 3 Whether collateral effects of a judgment can be used to establish federal appellate jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was quashed because the matter in dispute did not involve $2,000 or more and did not directly concern title to land or annual rents within the meaning of s.29(b) of R. S. C.; collateral effects cannot be relied on to establish jurisdiction, therefore the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal quashed for want of jurisdiction

Orders

  • Appeal quashed with costs
  • Motion to quash allowed with costs as if made on the first day of the term