Hogg v. The Toronto General Trust Corp.

Hogg v. The Toronto General Trust Corp.

The Privy Council decision held the surrogate proceedings lacked jurisdiction to charge interest on uninvested balances; because that decision turned on jurisdiction it did not decide the substantive right to interest and therefore did not operate as res judicata; the Court dismissed the appeal and left the Court of Appeal's order for a reference to determine interest intact.

Citation
[1934] SCR 1
Parties
Appellant/defendant: William D. Hogg; Respondent/plaintiff: The Toronto General Trusts Corporation, Administrator of the Estate of Lady Elizabeth Mary Howland
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 June 1933
Procedural Posture
Trust / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Liability of Trustee for Interest on Uninvested Balances, Res Judicata, Jurisdiction of Surrogate Courts, Passing of Accounts, Statutory Interpretation of S.65 R.s.o. 1927
Source Language
English
Trusts Equity Civil Procedure Liability of Trustee for Interest on Uninvested Balances Res Judicata Jurisdiction of Surrogate Courts Passing of Accounts Statutory Interpretation of S.65 R.s.o. 1927

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William D. Hogg

Appellant/defendant

The Toronto General Trusts Corporation, Administrator of the Estate of Lady Elizabeth Mary Howland

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Trust / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff’s claim for interest on uninvested trust balances was res judicata by reason of the prior Judicial Committee of the Privy Council decision in Campbell v. Hogg
  2. 2 Whether the surrogate court (and prior proceedings) had jurisdiction to charge interest on uninvested balances in the hands of this trustee
  3. 3 Proper scope and application of s.65(1) and s.65(3) of the Surrogate Courts Act, R.S.O., 1927

Ratio Decidendi

The Privy Council decision held the surrogate proceedings lacked jurisdiction to charge interest on uninvested balances; because that decision turned on jurisdiction it did not decide the substantive right to interest and therefore did not operate as res judicata; the Court dismissed the appeal and left the Court of Appeal's order for a reference to determine interest intact.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Order of the Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed: reference to the Master to take an account of such sum as the Master may properly find the appellant chargeable with in respect of interest or compound interest on the moneys amounting to $7,027.34.