Supreme Court of Canada
Vanderlaan et al. v. Edinburgh Developments Ltd. et al., [1976] 1 S.C.R. 294
Date: 1975-01-31
C. Vanderlaan and E. Sentes (Defendants) Appellants;
and
Edinburgh Developments Ltd. and Cascade Builders Ltd. (Plaintiffs) Respondents.
1975: January 30, 31; 1975: January 31.
Present: Laskin C.J. and Judson, Ritchie, Spence, Dickson, Beetz and de Grandpré JJ.
ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ALBERTA, APPELLATE DIVISION
Appeal—Supreme Court Act empowering highest Court of final resort in province to give leave to appeal to Supreme Court from final judgment—Leave to appeal given in respect of judgment affirming granting of interlocutory injunction—Not a final judgment—Court lacking jurisdiction to grant leave—Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. S-19, ss. 2(1), 38.
Appeal—Supreme Court Act empowering Supreme Court to grant leave to appeal from final or other judgment of highest Court of final resort in province—Interlocutory matter—Leave to appeal refused—Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. S-19, s. 41.
Application for leave to appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Alberta, Appellate Division, affirming a judgment granting an interlocutory injunction. Application dismissed.
M.R. McBain, Q.C., and M.D. McGown, for the defendants, appellants.
W.B. Gill, Q.C., and G.R. Meurin, for the plaintiffs, respondents.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by
THE CHIEF JUSTICE—The appeal in this case, from the judgment of the Alberta Appellate Division, Prowse J.A. dissenting, is brought here by virtue of leave given by that Court under s. 38 of the Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. S-19. That section empowers the highest Court of final
[Page 295]
resort in a province to give leave to appeal to this Court only from a final judgment, albeit that the provincial appellate Court be of opinion that the question involved is one that ought to be submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada for decision. The judgment of the Alberta Appellate Division from which it gave leave to appeal was a judgment affirming the granting of an interlocutory injunction against picketing at a certain construction site. That is not a final judgment within the definition in s. 2(1) of the Supreme Court Act, and hence there was no jurisdiction in the Alberta Appellate Division to grant leave.
The appellants now seek leave to appeal pursuant to s. 41 of the Supreme Court Act which so far as material here, empowers this Court to grant such leave from “any final or other judgment of the highest Court of final resort in a province…”. The fact that important questions of law are in issue (and this Court does not pass here on the correctness or otherwise of the rulings thereon) is not in itself sufficient to persuade the Court in this case that leave to appeal should be granted in an interlocutory matter.
Leave to appeal is accordingly refused. There will be no order as to costs.
Application dismissed.
Solicitors for the defendants, appellants: Barron, McBain, Green & Park, Calgary.
Solicitors for the plaintiffs, respondents: Gill, Cook, Calgary.
Email this Content