Supreme Court of Canada
Margianis v. Minister of Manpower and Immigration, [1971] S.C.R. 600
Date: 1971-06-07
Kootenay & Elk Railway Company and Burlington Northern Inc. Applicants;
and
Canadian Pacific Railway Company Respondent.
Vasillios Margianis also known as Walter Marianis Applicant;
and
The Minister of Manpower and Immigration Respondent.
1971: June 7; 1971: June 7.
Present: Fauteux C.J. and Abbott, Martland, Judson, Ritchie, Hall, Spence, Pigeon and Laskin JJ.
MOTIONS
Appeal—Jurisdiction—Statute giving new right of appeal—Retrospective effect—Federal Court Act, 1970 (Can.), c. 1, s. 61.
On May 13, 1971, and January 7, 1971 respectively, the Canadian Transport Commission and the Immigration Appeal Board gave judgment in each of these two cases. A motion for leave to appeal to this Court having been filed in each case, the Court ordered a joint hearing before the full Court on the question of the Court’s jurisdiction to hear the motions in view of s. 61 of the Federal Court Act, 1970 (Can.), c. 1, which came into force on June 1, 1971, and which reads as follows:
61. (1) Where this Act creates a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal or a right to apply to the Court of Appeal under section 28 to have a decision or order reviewed and set aside, such right applies, to the exclusion of any other right of appeal, in respect of a judgment, decision or order given or made after this Act comes into force, unless, in the case of a right of appeal, there was at that time a right of appeal to the Exchequer Court of Canada.
(2) Subject to subsection (1), any jurisdiction created by this Act shall be exercised in respect of matters arising as well before as after the coming into force of this Act.
[Page 601]
Held: The Court has jurisdiction to hear the motions.
W.G. Burke-Robertson, Q.C., for Kootenay & Elk Ry. Co. and Burlington Northern Inc.
E.E. Saunders, Q.C., for Canadian Pacific Railway.
Paul Nadler, for Margianis.
C.R.O. Munro, Q.C., for Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
At the conlusion of the argument of counsel for all parties, the following judgment was delivered:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE (orally for the Court)
We are all of the opinion that the decision which is the subject matter of the motion for leave made in each case, having been made prior to the coming into force of the Federal Court Act, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain each of these motions.
Email this Content