Supreme Court of Canada
Desormeaux v. Village of Ste. Thérèse de Blainville, (1910) 43 S.C.R. 82
Date: 1910-02-16
Stanislas Desormeaux (Mis-en-cause) Appellant;
and
The Village of Ste. Thérèse De Blainville and Others (Plaintiffs) Respondents.
1910: February 15, 16.
Present: Sir Charles Fitzpatrick C.J. and Girouard, Davies, Idington, Duff and Anglin JJ.
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH, APPEAL SIDE, PROVINCE OF QUEBEC.
Appeal—Jurisdiction—Prohibition—Quebec appeals—R.S.C. [1906] c. 139, ss. 39 and 46—Construction of statute.
No appeal lies to the Supreme Court of Canada from the judgment of a court of the Province of Quebec in any case of proceedings for or upon a writ of prohibition, unless the matter in controversy falls within some of the classes of cases provided for by section 46 of the "Supreme Court Act," R.S.C. 1906, ch. 139. Shannon v. The Montreal Park and Island Railway Co. (28 Can. S.C.R.374) overruled.
APPEAL from the judgment of the Court of King's Bench, appeal side, affirming the judgment of the Superior Court, District of Terrebonne, maintaining the plaintiffs' petition for a writ of prohibition.
MOTION, on behalf of the respondents, to quash the appeal on the ground that the Supreme Court of Canada is incompetent to entertain appeals in matters of prohibition from judgments rendered in the courts of the Province of Quebec inasmuch as such cases do not fall within the classes of cases in which provision
[Page 83]
for appeals is made by section 46 of the "Supreme Court Act," R.S.C. 1906, ch. 139.
The controversy involved in the proceedings arose in consequence of a resolution of the municipal council confirming certain certificates for the issue of licenses for the sale of intoxicating liquors, under the provisions of the statutes of the Province of Quebec, and refusing to confirm a certificate for the license applied for by the appellant. The writ of prohibition restrained the Magistrates' Court for the County of Terrebonne from further proceedings in a matter or cause pending before it in respect to the action of the council in regard to the certificates in question. The appeal did not involve any of the matters in respect of which provisions are made in the 46th section of the "Supreme Court Act."
Cousineau for the motion.
Surveyer, contra.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by
The Chief Justice.—This is a motion to quash, an appeal from the judgment of the Court of King's Bench affirming a judgment of the Superior Court for the District of Terrebonne, granting a writ of prohibition, on the ground that no appeal lies to the Supreme Court of Canada from the Province of Quebec in any such case.
In Shannon v. The Montreal Park and Island Railway Co., Taschereau J. gave the judgment of the court in which he held that the provisions of section 39 of the "Supreme Court Act," formerly
[Page 84]
54 & 55 Vict. ch. 55, sec. 2, gave an appeal in cases of prohibition from the Province of Quebec. I regret that it is impossible for me to concur in that judgment. That section 39 of the "Supreme Court Act" applies to the whole Dominion is perfectly true, but the general jurisdiction conferred by that section is limited in so far as appeals from the Province of Quebec are concerned by the provisions of section 46. In other words, section 39 would seem to be a general section, like sections 36 and 38, which, notwithstanding the generality of their provisions, are subject to the special limitations provided by section 46, in Quebec, and by section 48 as to Ontario.
This motion must, therefore, be granted as this case does not come within any of the provisions of section 46, which determines the limits of our jurisdiction in appeals from Quebec.
Appeal quashed with costs.
Solicitor for the appellant: Camille deMartigny.
Solicitors for the respondents: Bastien, Bergeron, Cousineau & Jasmin.
Email this Content