Duhamel v. Coutu

Duhamel v. Coutu

The trial judge and the Court of Queen's Bench unanimously found no tacit renewal and that the lease terminated April 30, 1952; because these findings showed the appeal had no real substance, the Court quashed the appeal to prevent further costs.

Citation
[1954] SCR 279
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Armand Duhamel; Respondent/plaintiff: Dame Georgette Coutu
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 May 1954
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Motion to Quash for Want of Jurisdiction
Outcome
Motion to quash granted; appeal quashed for want of jurisdiction; costs awarded to respondent.
Legal Topics
Motion to Quash, Lack of Substance, Tacit Renewal of Lease, Jurisdiction
Source Language
English
Appeal Civil Procedure Property Law Motion to Quash Lack of Substance Tacit Renewal of Lease Jurisdiction

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Armand Duhamel

Appellant/defendant

Dame Georgette Coutu

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Motion to Quash for Want of Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal demonstrated a manifest lack of substance warranting quashing for want of jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether there was a tacit renewal of the lease
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge and Court of Queen's Bench correctly concluded the lease terminated April 30, 1952

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge and the Court of Queen's Bench unanimously found no tacit renewal and that the lease terminated April 30, 1952; because these findings showed the appeal had no real substance, the Court quashed the appeal to prevent further costs.

Court Disposition

Motion to quash granted; appeal quashed for want of jurisdiction; costs awarded to respondent.

Orders

  • Appeal quashed for want of jurisdiction.
  • Motion to quash granted.