Reburn v. La Corporation de la Paroisse de Ste. Anne du Bout de l'Isle

Reburn v. La Corporation de la Paroisse de Ste. Anne du Bout de l'Isle

Because the homologated procès‑verbal had the force of a by‑law and the appellant failed to pursue the direct cassation remedy within the Municipal Code time limits, the validity of the procès‑verbal could not be attacked incidentally in this enforcement action; although the Court found the matter was appealable...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
(1887) 15 SCR 92
Parties
Appellant/defendant: W. A. Reburn; Respondent/plaintiff: La Corporation de la Paroisse de Ste. Anne du Bout de l'Isle
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 June 1887
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench (lower Canada) (appeal Side)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Municipal Council Powers, Procès Verbal Homologation, Appealability, By Law Challenge and Time Limits, Road Works / Macadamizing, Charge/servitude on Land
Source Language
english
Municipal Law Property Law Administrative Law Appeal Jurisdiction Municipal Council Powers Procès Verbal Homologation Appealability By Law Challenge and Time Limits +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

W. A. Reburn

Appellant/defendant

La Corporation de la Paroisse de Ste. Anne du Bout de l'Isle

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench (lower Canada) (appeal Side)

  1. 1 Whether a homologated municipal procès-verbal can be attacked by incidental procedure or only by direct cassation proceedings under the Municipal Code
  2. 2 Whether the local municipal council had jurisdiction to order the raising and widening (or macadamizing) of the road fronting appellant's land
  3. 3 Whether the matter was appealable to the Supreme Court because the order could bind appellant's future property rights

Ratio Decidendi

Because the homologated procès‑verbal had the force of a by‑law and the appellant failed to pursue the direct cassation remedy within the Municipal Code time limits, the validity of the procès‑verbal could not be attacked incidentally in this enforcement action; although the Court found the matter was appealable since the order could impose a permanent charge affecting future rights, the appeal failed on the merits because the council's order (raising and widening) was within its discretion and the appellant had not timely sought its annulment.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs