Kumpas v. Kumpas

Kumpas v. Kumpas
Collection
Supreme Court Judgments
Date
1970-02-16
Report
[1970] SCR 438
Judges
Abbott, Douglas Charles; Judson, Wilfred; Ritchie, Roland Almon; Hall, Emmett Matthew; Spence, Wishart Flett
On appeal from
Manitoba
Subjects
Appeal
Decision Content
Supreme Court of Canada
Kumpas v. Kumpas, [1970] S.C.R. 438
Date: 1970-02-16
Peter Kumpas Appellant;
and
Annie Eva Kumpas Respondent.
1970: February 16; 1970: February 16.
Present: Abbott, Judson, Ritchie, Hall and Spence JJ.
MOTION TO QUASH
Appeal—Motion to quash—Jurisdiction—Divorce—Court of Appeal varying amount of maintenance and awarding lump sum—Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada without leave—Delays prescribed by Divorce Act for leave expired—Appeal dismissed—Divorce Act, 1968 (Can.), c. 24, ss. 17, 18—Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 259.
On July 4, 1969, the appellant was granted a decree nisi of divorce and ordered to pay maintenance to his wife in the sum of $250 per month. On October 31, 1969, the Court of Appeal upheld the decree of divorce and varied the award by directing that in addition to the sum of $250 per month, the appellant pay to this wife a lump sum of $10,000. An appeal as of right was filed to this Court by the appellant. The respondent moved to quash the appeal on the ground that leave to appeal as required by s. 18 of the Divorce Act had not been obtained within the delay prescribed by the Act.
Held: The motion to quash should be granted.
MOTION TO QUASH an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal for Manitoba[1], varying the award of maintenance in a divorce action. Motion granted.
M. Kaufman, for the appellant.
D. McCaffrey, for the petitioner, respondent.
At the conclusion of the argument of counsel for both parties, the following judgment was delivered:
ABBOTT J. (orally for the Court)—We are all of the opinion that the decision of this Court in Massicotte v. Boutin[2] is applicable in the present case.
This Court has therefore no jurisdiction to entertain this appeal and the motion to quash is granted with costs.
Motion to quash granted with costs.
Solicitors for the appellant: Yanofsky & Pollock, Winnipeg.
Solicitors for the respondent: Walsh, Micay & Company, Winnipeg.
[1] (1970), 71 W.W.R. 317.
[2] [1969] S.C.R. 818.