Jacques Flynn

The appellant filed an appearance and declaration of incidental appeal in the office of the Provincial Court instead of the Court of Appeal.

Over two years later, the appellant sought special leave from the Court of Appeal to file the documents properly, arguing the trial court clerk failed to forward them.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, holding it lacked jurisdiction to extend the time limit beyond six months under art. 523 C.C.P. The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, finding that while the documents were filed in the wrong office, the time limit for an incidental appeal is not strict like a principal appeal.

The Court held that the Court of Appeal had broad discretionary power under art. 523 C.C.P. to correct the procedural error and should have exercised it to prevent the loss of the appellant's right of appeal, as the respondents suffered no prejudice.

The respondent owned a four-apartment building and leased one unit to a youth organization for social gatherings.

A fire subsequently destroyed the building.

The appellant insurer denied coverage on the basis that the policy only covered buildings occupied solely as private dwellings.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the change in use transformed the subject-matter of the insurance, constituting an exclusion of risk rather than a mere aggravation of risk.

The insurer was therefore justified in refusing to compensate the respondent, and the appeal was allowed.

The appellant owned land that was leased to a third party for farming.

The municipal and school authorities valued and taxed the land as ordinary immovables, ignoring the special tax provisions for land under cultivation in s. 523 of the Cities and Towns Act.

The appellant brought direct actions in nullity to set aside the valuation and collection rolls and to recover the taxes paid in error.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the land was land under cultivation and that the authorities had acted ultra vires by ignoring the statutory exemption.

The Court allowed the direct actions in nullity, but found that the claim for recovery of municipal taxes for the first two years was prescribed by the five-year limitation period.

The appellants' mother, acting as their tutrix, sold immoveables in which her minor children owned an undivided two-thirds share to her own mother, who shortly thereafter gifted the property back to the tutrix.

The property was later sold to bona fide third party purchasers and subsequently expropriated by the province.

The appellants brought a direct action in nullity to annul the initial sale, the gift, and subsequent deeds, arguing the tutrix's purchase through an interposed party violated the Civil Code.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the sale was irremediably vitiated and that the apparent defect in title could be opposed to the bona fide third party purchasers.

A prior judgment authorizing confirmation of the voidable deeds was also annulled because it unlawfully authorized a confirmation during the minority of the pupils.