Montreal Tramways Co. v. McGill

Montreal Tramways Co. v. McGill
Collection
Supreme Court Judgments
Date
1916-05-25
Report
(1916) 53 SCR 390
Judges
Fitzpatrick, Charles; Davies, Louis Henry; Idington, John; Anglin, Francis Alexander; Brodeur, Louis-Philippe
On appeal from
Quebec
Subjects
Appeal
Decision Content
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[1], 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 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[2], the declaration 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.
[1] Q.R. 49 S.C. 326.
[2] 20 Can. S.C.R. 216.