Supreme Court of Canada
Pulos v. Lazanis and Kladis, (1918) 57 S.C.R. 337
Date: 1918-11-18
Harry Pulos
(Plaintiff) Appellant;
and
George N. Lazanis
and Denis Lazanis (Defendants) Respondents.
and
Mary Kladis
(Intervening Party) Respondents.
1918: October 21; 1918: November 18.
Present:
Sir Louis Davies C.J. and Idington, Duff, Anglin and Brodeur JJ.
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH,
APPEAL SIDE, PROVINCE OF QUEBEC.
Appeal—Jurisdiction—Intervention—Judicial
proceeding—Matter in controversy—"Supreme Court Act," section 46.
An intervention is a "judicial"
proceeding within the meaning of section 46 of the "Supreme Court
Act."
The matter in controversy, which will
determine the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Canada, is the amount in
issue upon the intervention and not the one originally claimed on the main
action. King v. /?/Dupuis, (23 Can. S.C.R. 388,) and Côlé v.
Richardson Co., (38 Can. S.C.R. 41,) followed.
MOTION to quash for want of jurisdiction an
appeal from the judgment of the Court of King's Bench, appeal side, reversing the judgment of
the Superior Court, District of Montreal, and maintaining the respondents'
intervention.
The grounds urged on the motion are fully
stated in the judgment now reported.
Belcourt K.C. for the motion.
Thomas Walsh K.C. and Clark contra.
The judgment of the court was delivered by
Brodeur J.—This is a motion to quash for want of jurisdiction.
[Page 338]
An action had been instituted several years ago
by the appellant Pulos, against the defendants Lazanis, for a sum of $1,807.56.
Judgment was rendered in 1912 for that sum with interest.
In 1916, a writ of saisie-arrêt after
judgment was issued in the ordinary way to recover money in the hands of the
firm of Sperdakos & Lerikos. The tierssaisis declared in substance
that the defendant, Denis Lazanis, was a member of their firm and that they
owed him money.
The wife of Denis Lazanis then fyled an
intervention and claimed that it be declared that the defendant Lazanis, her
husband, had no share in the partnership of Sperdakos & Lerikos, but that
she herself be declared the sole proprietor of one-third share in that
partnership.
That intervention was contested by the
plaintiff, Pulos. The Superior Court dismissed the intervention but that
judgment was reversed on appeal.
Then the real controversy on that intervention
was whether their share in the firm belonged to the defendant or to his wife.
The respondent contends that the jurisdiction of
this court should be determined by the amount originally claimed on the main
action, and relies on Champoux v. Lapierre; Kinghorn
v. Larue;
and Gendron v. McDougall.
On the other hand, the appellant claims that the
value of the share in dispute should determine our jurisdiction.
It is now the well-settled jurisprudence of this
court that an intervention is a "judicial" proceeding within the
meaning of section 46 of the "Supreme
[Page 339]
Court Act;" and where the appeal depends
upon the amount in controversy there is an appeal to this court if the amount
in controversy upon the intervention amounts to the value of $2,000. King v.
Dupuis;
Côté v. Richardson Co..
The intervening party, the respondent, stands in
the same position as a plaintiff, and her proceeding is to all intents and
purposes an action in revendication of her rights in the partnership.
The amount of money she claims to have put in
the partnership is $2,000. In the Court of Appeal, the so much regretted late
Chief Justice (Sir Horace Archambeault) stated in his reasons of judgment that
her partners offered her husband $5,500 for her share and that the husband
asked for $7,000. The affidavits fyled proved beyond doubt that the value of
that share exceeds $2,000.
In those circumstances, we have jurisdiction and
this motion to quash should be dismissed with costs.
Motion dismissed with costs.
Email this Content