Schwob v. Town of Farnham

Schwob v. Town of Farnham

The Court held the new Code of Procedure applied because the peremption period at issue began to run after the Code came into force; applying the shorter two-year peremption limit was not retroactive since peremption is procedural and determined by the law in force when the right to demand peremption accrued (date of last act, June 30, 1898).

Citation
(1901) 31 SCR 471
Parties
Plaintiff Appellant: Moise Schwob et al; Defendant Respondent: The Town of Farnham
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 October 1901
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of King's Bench (quebec)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Peremption D'instance, Retroactivity of Procedural Law, Application of New Procedural Code to Pending Actions, Limitation Periods
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Statutory Interpretation Limitation Law Peremption D'instance Retroactivity of Procedural Law Application of New Procedural Code to Pending Actions Limitation Periods

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Moise Schwob et al

Plaintiff Appellant

The Town of Farnham

Defendant Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of King's Bench (quebec)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the new Code of Procedure (shortening peremption from three to two years) applies to actions pending when it came into force
  2. 2 Whether applying the new peremption period to the present case would constitute impermissible retroactive legislation
  3. 3 Interpretation and scope of the fourth paragraph of article 1 C.P.Q. as excluding retroactive application

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held the new Code of Procedure applied because the peremption period at issue began to run after the Code came into force; applying the shorter two-year peremption limit was not retroactive since peremption is procedural and determined by the law in force when the right to demand peremption accrued (date of last act, June 30, 1898).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs