Bowaters (Nfld.) Ltd. v. Mines and Forests (Nfld.) Ltd. et al., (1976) 10 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 382 (NFCA)

• Judge: Furlong, C.J.N., Morgan and Gushue, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Newfoundland)
• Case Date: September 14, 1976
• Jurisdiction: Newfoundland and Labrador
• Citations: (1976), 10 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 382 (NFCA)

Bowaters v. Mines & For. (1976), 10 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 382 (NFCA);

    17 A.P.R. 382

MLB headnote and full text

Bowaters Newfoundland Limited v. Mines and Forests (Newfoundland) Limited and Reid Newfoundland Company Limited

Indexed As: Bowaters (Nfld.) Ltd. v. Mines and Forests (Nfld.) Ltd. et al.

Newfoundland Supreme Court

Court of Appeal

Furlong, C.J.N., Morgan and Gushue, JJ.A.

September 14, 1976.

Summary:

This case arose out of the plaintiff's claim for an injunction and a declaration with regard to title to land acquired in an agreement from the defendants. The Newfoundland Supreme Court, Trial Division, dismissed the plaintiff's action in a judgment reported 7 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 208; 3 A.P.R. 208. The plaintiff's appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed in a judgment reported 9 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 391; 12 A.P.R. 391. The plaintiff applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada pursuant to s. 38 of the Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. S-19.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application.

Practice - Topic 9090

Appeals - Supreme Court of Canada - Leave to appeal to Supreme Court of Canada by appeal court - Grounds - Question of law - What constitutes a question of law - Interpretation of a deed - The Newfoundland Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiff's appeal from the dismissal of its action for an injunction and a declaration with regard to title to land acquired in an agreement in 1923 - The case involved the interpretation of the agreement - The Court of Appeal set out the principles governing leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada under s. 38 of the Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. S-19 - The Court of Appeal held that the interpretation of a deed was a question of fact, not of law - The Court of Appeal refused the plaintiff leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, because the case did not involve a matter of public interest or an important question of law.

Cases Noticed:

Chimo Shipping Ltd. v. Johnson, Drake and Piper International Corp. Ltd., 46 M.P.R. 109, appld. [para. 1].

Luxor (Eastbourne) Ltd. v. Cooper, [1941] A.C. 108, appld. [para. 12].

Statutes Noticed:

Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. S-19, sect. 38 [para. 6].

Counsel:

Clyde K. Wells, for the plaintiff-appellant;

John O'Neill, Q.C., for the defendants-respondents.

This case was heard at St. John's, Newfoundland, before FURLONG, C.J.N., and MORGAN and GUSHUE, JJ.A., of the Newfoundland Supreme Court, Court of Appeal.

On September 14, 1976, the judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered and the following opinions were filed:

FURLONG, C.J.N. - see paragraphs 1 - 4.

MORGAN, J.A. - see paragraphs 5 - 14.

GUSHUE, J.A. - see paragraphs 15 - 21.