Montmagny Election Case

Montmagny Election Case

Service was invalid because delivery to the appellant's law partner at the office, which was distinct from the appellant's domicile and the partner was not a family member, failed to satisfy art.57 C.C.P. and s.11 of the Controverted Elections Act; such defective service is a proper preliminary objection that deprives the court of jurisdiction and requires dismissal of the petition.

Citation
(1888) 15 SCR 1
Parties
Appellant: Philippe Auguste Choquette; Respondents: Damase Laberge et al.
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 March 1888
Procedural Posture
Election Petition (controverted Election) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada on Preliminary Objections to Service of Petition
Outcome
Appeal allowed; election petition dismissed.
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Controverted Elections Act S.11, Code of Civil Procedure Art.57 (quebec), Preliminary Objections, Jurisdictional Defect
Source Language
English
Elections Civil Procedure Jurisdiction Service of Process Controverted Elections Act S.11 Code of Civil Procedure Art.57 (quebec) Preliminary Objections Jurisdictional Defect

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

Philippe Auguste Choquette

Appellant

Damase Laberge et al.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Election Petition (controverted Election) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada on Preliminary Objections to Service of Petition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether service of an election petition by leaving a copy with the defendant's law partner at the office located in the same building as the defendant's domicile satisfied s.11 of the Controverted Elections Act and art.57 C.C.P.
  2. 2 Whether defective service of process is a valid preliminary objection that deprives the court of jurisdiction and requires dismissal of the petition

Ratio Decidendi

Service was invalid because delivery to the appellant's law partner at the office, which was distinct from the appellant's domicile and the partner was not a family member, failed to satisfy art.57 C.C.P. and s.11 of the Controverted Elections Act; such defective service is a proper preliminary objection that deprives the court of jurisdiction and requires dismissal of the petition.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; election petition dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Election petition dismissed