In Re Cahan, (1892) 21 SCR 100

Supreme Court of Canada

In re Cahan (1892) 21 SCR 100

Date: 1892-05-10

In Re Cahan.

1892: May 10.

Present:—Sir W. J. Ritchie C. J., and Strong, Taschereau, Gwynne and Patterson JJ.

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA.

Appeal—Jurisdiction—Security for costs—Final judgment—Admission of attorney.

An appeal was sought from the refusal of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia to admit the appellant as an attorney of the court. There being no person interested in opposing the application or the appeal no security for costs was given.

Held, Gwynne J. dissenting, that the court had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

Per Ritchie C.J. and Taschereau J.—Except in cases specially provided for no appeal can be heard by this court unless security for costs has been given as provided by s. 46 of The Supreme and Exchequer Courts Act (R. S. C. c. 135).

Per Strong and Taschereau JJ.—It was never intended that this court should interfere in matters respecting the admission of attornies and barristers in the several provinces.

Per Taschereau and Patterson JJ.—The judgment sought to be appealed from is not a final judgment within the meaning of the Supreme Court Act.

Appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia refusing the application of the appellant for admission as attorney of the court.

By an act passed by the Nova Scotia Legislature in 1891, 54 Vic. ch. 22, special privileges were given to graduates of the Dalhousie Law School wishing to be admitted to practice the profession of the law in that province. The appellant, Cahan, applied to the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia for admission as an attorney and barrister of that court, presenting certificates which showed that he had taken the prescribed course at the law school and received the degree of LL.B. The Supreme Court refused his application on the ground

[Page 101]

that the act of 1891 had not repealed the statutes previously in force respecting such application, and that it was necessary for the applicant to comply with the conditions contained in such prior statutes. The applicant sought to appeal from the decision of the Supreme Court, and as his application had not been opposed there was no person to whom security for costs could be given and none was given.

Russell Q.C. for the appellant.

Sir W. J. RITCHIE C.J.—Section 46 of the Supreme and Exchequer Courts Act provides that "no appeal shall be allowed unless the appellant has given proper security," etc. In the face of that provision I cannot, see what right we have to hear an appeal where no security has been given, and on this ground alone I am of opinion that the appeal should be quashed.

STRONG J.—I think we have no jurisdiction to hear this appeal, and I wish my judgment to rest solely on the ground that I do not think it was ever intended that we should interfere with the admission of attornies and barristers in the several provinces.

TASCHEREAU J.—In my opinion each of the grounds that have been suggested constitutes a valid objection to our jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Under section 46 of the act the want of security is fatal to the appellant; I do not think the judgment of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia is a final judgment within the meaning of that term as used in the Supreme Court Act; and I agree with my brother Strong that the case is not one in which it would be proper for us to interfere.

[Page 102]

GWYNNE J.—I am not satisfied that we have no jurisdiction. In my opinion, section 46 is only intended to apply to cases where there is somebody to whom security for costs can be given and not to such a case as this. The judgment was certainly final as it disposed of the application, and that being so I do not see how we are precluded from hearing the appeal.

PATTERSON J.—I do not think that the judgment in this case was a "final judgment" from which an appeal would lie to this court.

Appeal quashed.

Solicitor for appellant: B. Russell.