City of Toronto v. Saunders, [1931] SCR 650

Supreme Court of Canada

City of Toronto v. Saunders, [1931] S.C.R. 650

Date: 1931-05-26

The Corporation of the City of Toronto (Plaintiff) Applicant;

and

Saunders et al. (Defendant) Respondents.

1931: May 26.

Present: Anglin C.J.C. and Newcombe, Rinfret, Smith and Cannon JJ.

ON APPEAL FROM THE APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ONTARIO.

Appeal—Jurisdiction—Matter in controversy (sole question, one as to jurisdiction of Ontario Railway and Municipal Board)—Title to land—Future rights—Supreme Court Act, R.J.C., 1927, c. 85, s. 41

MOTION on behalf of the Corporation of the City of Toronto for special leave to appeal (such leave having been

[Page 651]

refused below) from the judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario[1] which, on an equal division of the court, dismissed its appeal (which was in form a motion for leave to appeal but was treated as an appeal) from a holding of the Ontario Railway and Municipal Board that the Board had no jurisdiction under s. 6 of the Local Improvement Act, R.S.O., 1927, c. 235, to entertain an application for approval of a certain work proposed to be undertaken by the City as a local improvement, and sometimes referred to as the “Jarvis-street extension.” The nature of the proposed work is described and discussed in the judgments in the Appellate Division¹.

After hearing the arguments of counsel, the judgment of the Court was orally delivered by the Chief Justice, refusing the motion with costs, on the ground that this Court had no jurisdiction to grant the leave to appeal applied for; the sole question in controversy was one as to jurisdiction of the Board; the title to land might be indirectly and remotely involved, but only very indirectly and remotely; it could not be said that there was any title to land in controversy in the appeal; and there was no matter in question affecting future rights, as they are to be understood in clause (c) of the proviso to s. 41 of the Supreme Court Act.

Motion refused with costs.

G.R. Geary K.C. for the motion.

S.M. Clark contra.