Services de santé du Québec v. Québec (Communauté urbaine) et al., (1992) 134 N.R. 1 (SCC)

• Judge: L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and Cory, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: February 13, 1992
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1992), 134 N.R. 1 (SCC);EYB 1992-80056;[1992] 1 SCR 426;1992 CanLII 122 (SCC);AZ-92111026;JE 92-332;134 NR 1;46 QAC 49

Services de la santé du Qué. v. Qué. (1992), 134 N.R. 1 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Services de santé du Québec (appellant) v. Communauté urbaine de Québec, Ville de Ste-Foy and Bureau de révision de l'évaluation foncière du Québec (respondents)

(21733)

Indexed As: Services de santé du Québec v. Québec (Communauté urbaine) et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest,

L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and Cory, JJ.

February 13, 1992.

Summary:

In a real estate assessment case, the Bureau de révision de l'évaluation foncière du Québec rendered a decision favourable to Services de santé du Québec (S.S.Q.). The Communauté urbaine de Québec (C.U.Q.) and the town of Ste-Foy appealed. The Quebec Provincial Court, in a decision reported [1988] R.J.Q. 184, allowed the appeal in part. C.U.Q. and Ste-Foy appealed to the Quebec Court of Appeal. S.S.Q. replied with an incidental appeal but, con­trary to a practice which had evolved given the silence of the relevant Code of Civil Procedure articles, filed it in the Provincial Court Office rather than the Appeal Office. Two years after the Provincial Court judg­ment, S.S.Q. sought permission from the Quebec Court of Appeal to file its incidental appeal in the Appeal Office. The Quebec Court of Appeal, in an unreported judgment, dismissed S.S.Q.'s motion. S.S.Q. appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal.

Quebec Procedure - Topic 7

General - Render effective the substantive law - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the liberal attitude governing the Code of Civil Procedure in that procedure is the servant of the substantive law rather than its master - See paragraphs 10 to 17.

Québec: Procédure - Cote 7

Généralités - Faire apparaître le droit - [See Quebec Procedure - Topic 7 ].

Quebec Procedure - Topic 7951

Appeal - General - Basis of right of appeal - The Supreme Court of Canada indicated that the right of appeal was a statutory creation governed by precise rules - See paragraphs 10 to 17.

Québec: Procédure - Cote 7951

Appel - Généralités - Fondement du droit d'appel - [Voir Quebec Procedure - Topic 7951 ].

Quebec Procedure - Topic 8037

Appeal - Incidental appeal - Filing of - The Supreme Court of Canada held that an incidental appeal is filed by the production of the relevant documents in the Appeal Office and not in the Trial Court Office - The court added however that the Quebec Court of Appeal had jurisdiction under art. 523 C.C.P. to allow a party to cure a wrong filing - See paragraphs 18 to 67.

Québec: Procédure - Cote 8037

Appel - Appel incident - Dépôt - [Voir Quebec Procedure - Topic 8037 ].

Quebec Procedure - Topic 8085

Appeal - Powers of Court of Appeal - Make any order necessary to safeguard the rights of the parties - The Supreme Court of Canada held that an incidental appeal is filed by the production of the relevant documents in the Appeal Office and not in the Trial Court Office - The court added however that the Quebec Court of Appeal had jurisdiction under art. 523 C.C.P. to allow a party to cure a wrong filing - See paragraphs 18 to 67.

Québec: Procédure - Cote 8085

Appel - Pouvoirs de la Cour d'appel - Rendre toutes ordonnances propres à sauvegarder les droits des parties - [Voir Quebec Procedure - Topic 8085 ].

Cases Noticed:

Hamel v. Brunelle and Labonté, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 147; 8 N.R. 481, refd to. [para. 13].

Duquet v. Town of Sainte-Agathe-des-Monts, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 1132; 13 N.R. 160, consd. [para. 13].

Bowen v. City of Montreal, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 511; 29 N.R. 408, consd. [para. 14].

Gauthier v. Cité de Pont Viau, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 516; 21 N.R. 192, consd. [para. 15].

St-Hilaire v. Bégin, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 79; 38 N.R. 253, refd to. [para. 32].

Cégep André-Laurendeau v. Adanox Ltée, [1982] C.A. 253, refd to. [para. 32].

Microlab Inc. v. Dauphin, [1983] C.A. 269, refd to. [para. 32].

Béland v. Scott, [1983] R.D.J. 456 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

Longmoor Building Co. (Quebec) Ltd. v. Main Plumbing and Heating Supplies Co., [1984] C.A. 82, refd to. [para. 32].

Nelson International of Canada Ltd. v. Béton Provincial Ltée, [1984] C.A. 260, refd to. [para. 32].

Saratoga Construction Ltée v. Horne, [1984] R.D.J. 352 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

Junk v. Schellwald, [1986] R.D.J. 608 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

Hansford v. Létourneau (1987), 5 Q.A.C. 193 (C.A.), consd. [para. 32].

Gersten v. Luxenberg, [1987] R.J.Q. 533 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

Prévoyants du Canada, Assurance générale v. Marcotte, [1986] R.D.J. 137 (C.A.), consd. [para. 43].

Cousineau v. Le Bihan, [1967] B.R. 945, refd to. [para. 51].

Emblem Investments Ltd. v. Moretti, [1969] B.R. 977, refd to. [para. 51].

Frères des Ecoles Chrétiennes de Montréal v. DuMesnil, [1973] C.A. 264, refd to. [para. 51].

Villeneuve (Ville) v. Drapeau, [1975] R.P. 309, refd to. [para. 51].

Sauvé Construction Ltée v. Langsner-Fuhrer Inc., [1976] R.P. 39, refd to. [para. 51].

Eole II Inc. v. Corporation Québec 1534-1984 Inc. et Société immobilière du Canada (Vieux-Port de Québec) Inc., [1987] R.D.J. 605; 12 Q.A.C. 235 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 51].

Statutes Noticed:

Code of Civil Procedure (Que.), art. 2, art. 494, art. 495, art. 498, art. 499, art. 500, art. 502, art. 523.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1897 (Que.), art. 1248.

Authors and Works Noticed:

Québec, Assemblée législative de Québec, Bill 20: Code de procédure civile, 1965, pp. 1a [para. 12]; IVa [para. 11]; 99a [paras. 26, 37].

Counsel:

Pierre Delisle, Q.C. and Jacques Flynn, Q.C., for the appellant;

Viateur Bergeron, Q.C., for the respon­dents.

Solicitors of Record:

Pothier, Bégin & Ass., Ste-Foy, Que., for the appellant;

Alain, Tardif & Ass., Québec, Qué., for the respondents.

This appeal was heard on December 5, 1991, by Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heu­reux-Dubé, Gonthier and Cory, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The decision of the Supreme Court was delivered in both official languages on Feb­ruary 13, 1992, by L'Heureux-Dubé, J.