Supreme Court of Canada

Nicholson v. Haldimand-Norfolk Regional Board of Commissioners of Police, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 92

Date: 1981-03-02

Arthur Gwyn Nicholson Applicant;

and

Haldimand-Norfolk Regional Board of Commissioners of Police Respondent;

and

The Attorney General for the Province of Ontario Intervener.

1981: February 16; 1981: March 2.

Present: Laskin C.J. and Dickson and Mclntyre JJ.

ON AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

Appeal—Motion for leave to appeal—Motion refused.

Administrative law—Police—Application for leave to appeal on effect of statute after Ontario Court of Appeal refused leave on particular issue from judgment of Ontario Divisional Court—Leave to appeal to intermediate appellate court granted on other issues—The Public Authorities Protection Act, R.S.O. 1970, c. 374, s. 11.

MOTION for leave to appeal from the order of the Ontario Court of Appeal[^1], dismissing an appeal from the Ontario Divisional Court. Motion dismissed.

Paul J. Osier, for the applicant.

Paul D. Amey, for the respondent.

Tom Lederer, for the intervener.

The judgment of the Court was delivered by

THE CHIEF JUSTICE—In Ernewein v. The Minister of Employment and Immigration[^2], this Court held that it would not entertain an application for leave to appeal from the refusal of an intermediate appellate court to grant leave to appeal to it where such leave was required to bring a case before that court. This principle, in my opinion, also applies in respect of any issue on which required leave to

[Page 93]

appeal has been refused by the intermediate appellate court, although leave to appeal to it was granted on other issues.

Accordingly, I hold that this Court will not entertain applicant’s request for leave to appeal on the effect of s. 11 of The Public Authorities Protection Act, R.S.O. 1970, c. 374, when the Ontario Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal on this issue from the judgment of the Ontario Divisional Court. The issue was a key one in the application for leave to appeal to this Court and, this apart, I am not persuaded that the application for leave should be granted. I would, accordingly, dismiss it but without costs.

Application dismissed without costs.

Solicitors for the applicant: Arrell, Brown, Osier & Murray, Caledonia.

Solicitors for the respondent: Waterous, Holden, Kent & Amey, Brantford.

Solicitor for the intervener: D.W. Brown, Toronto.

[^1]: (1980), 1980 ONCA 1660, 31 O.R. (2d) 195, (1980), 117 D.L.R. (3d) 604.

[^2]: 1979 SCC 185, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 639.