Colchester South (Township) v. Valad

Colchester South (Township) v. Valad

The appeal was properly dismissed because notice of appeal was not given within the time prescribed by Consolidated Rules 848 and 849 and the referee's report, having become final by lapse of time, was binding on the court which was therefore obliged to adopt the referee's findings and enter judgment for the damages the referee assessed; refusal to extend time was a discretionary decision that will not be overturned on appeal.

Citation
(1895) 24 SCR 622
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Municipal Corporation of the Township of Colchester South; Respondent/plaintiff: Dominique Valad
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 June 1895
Procedural Posture
Action for Damages (negligence Against Municipality) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario (after Divisional Court Judgment)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of Divisional Court and Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed
Legal Topics
Reference to Referee, Time for Appealing/report Filing, Confirmation of Report by Lapse of Time, Judicial Discretion to Extend Time, Scope of Referee's Jurisdiction, Judgment on Referee's Report
Source Language
English
Tort Municipal Law Civil Procedure Judicature/referees Reference to Referee Time for Appealing/report Filing Confirmation of Report by Lapse of Time Judicial Discretion to Extend Time +2 more

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Municipal Corporation of the Township of Colchester South

Appellant/defendant

Dominique Valad

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Action for Damages (negligence Against Municipality) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario (after Divisional Court Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appeal from referee's report was brought within time required by Consolidated Rules 848 and 849
  2. 2 Whether delay in filing the report can extend the time for appealing
  3. 3 Whether the Divisional Court could extend time for appeal as an indulgence and whether that discretion was reviewable

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was properly dismissed because notice of appeal was not given within the time prescribed by Consolidated Rules 848 and 849 and the referee's report, having become final by lapse of time, was binding on the court which was therefore obliged to adopt the referee's findings and enter judgment for the damages the referee assessed; refusal to extend time was a discretionary decision that will not be overturned on appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of Divisional Court and Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment affirmed ordering defendants to pay plaintiff $600 damages with interest from date of report and plaintiff's costs (including costs of reference)