Supreme Court of Canada
Montreal Tramways Co. v. McGill, (1916) 53 S.C.R. 390
Date: 1916-05-25
The Montreal
Tramways Company (Defendants) Appellants;
and
Charles McGill (Plaintiff)
Respondent.
1916: May 19; 1916: May 25.
Present: Sir Charles Fitzpatrick C.J. and
Davies, Idington, Anglin and Brodeur JJ.
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF REVIEW, AT
MONTREAL.
Appeal from Court of Review—Jurisdiction—Amount
in controversy—Addition of cost of exhibits.
The cost of exhibits (claimed by the action),
which may be taxable as costs in the cause between party and party, cannot be
added to the amount of the demande in order to increase the amount in
controversy to the sum or value necessary to give the right of appeal to the
Supreme Court of Canada. Dufresne v, Guevremont (26 Can. S.C.R.
216), followed.
MOTION to quash an appeal from the judgment
of the Court of Review, at Montreal,
affirming the judgment entered at the trial, in the Superior Court, District of
Montreal, by Greenshields J., on the findings of the jury, in favour of the
plaintiff, with costs.
The action was brought to recover damages for
personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff through the alleged negligence of
the company and, by the conclusions off his declaration, the plaintiff claimed
five thousand dollars with interest and "costs of suit, including costs of
exhibits." Before instituting the action the plaintiff, as required by
statute, served a notice on the defendants claiming compensation and
[Page 391]
it appeared that, in the event of the action
being maintained, there would be a fee payable on the notice and the cost of
service amounted to seventy-five cents. On the hearing of the motion to quash
the appeal for want of jurisdiction, under section 40 of the "Supreme
Court Act," R.S.C., 1906, ch. 139, it was contended by the appellants that
the amount of the fee on the notice and of the cost of serving it should be
considered part of the demande and, being added to the amount of the
damages claimed, would bring the amount of the controversy over the sum
necessary to give the right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy
Council under articles 68 (3) and 69 of the Code of Civil Procedure and,
consequently, the appeal would lie to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Callaghan supported
the motion.
Meredith K.C. contra.
The judgment of the court was delivered by
The Chief
Justice.—Apparently a nice question of jurisdiction
arises in this case. The conclusion of the declaration is:—
The plaintiff prays for judgment against
the defendants for the said sum of $5,000, with interest from this date and
costs of suit, including costs of exhibits.
Articles 68 (3) and 69 of the Code of Civil
Procedure give an appeal from the Court of Review to the Privy Council in every
case
where the amount or value of the thing demanded
exceeds five thousand dollars.
In the case of Dufresne v. Guévremont, the declaration
[Page 392]
seems to have concluded with much the same
language, viz.—the plaintiff sued, on the 26th December, 1893, for
$2,150 with interest at 8% per annum from date of action till paid, with costs.
The Supreme Court held that the claim as set out in the declaration was only
for $2,150 and that although the interest was claimed in the declaration it
could not be looked at for the purpose of considering whether the amount
claimed was more than £500.
The appellants here urge that we must add to the
amount claimed in the conclusions of the declaration the fee on the notice of
action served on the company and the bailiff's charges for making the service.
But, as both these items are included in the costs taxable as between party and
party, we do not think they can be considered in determining whether or not the
amount claimed is within the appealable limit.
The motion to quash is granted.
Appeal quashed with costs.
Email this Content