FVD Holdings Ltd. v. Crich, (1984) 3 O.A.C. 308 (DC)
|Judge:||Van Camp, Potts and McKinlay, JJ.|
|Court:||Superior Court of Justice of Ontario|
|Case Date:||April 10, 1984|
|Citations:||(1984), 3 O.A.C. 308 (DC)|
FVD Holdings Ltd. v. Crich (1984), 3 O.A.C. 308 (DC)
MLB headnote and full text
F.V.D. Holdings Limited v. Crich and Crich Holdings and Buildings Limited
Indexed As: F.V.D. Holdings Ltd. v. Crich and Crich Holdings and Buildings Ltd.
Ontario Divisional Court
Van Camp, Potts and McKinlay, JJ.
April 10, 1984.
A local judge of the Ontario High Court made an order under rule 612 of the Ontario Rules of Practice. On appeal, the issue was whether the local judge had jurisdiction.
The Ontario Divisional Court allowed the appeal and held that the local judge lacked jurisdiction.
Courts - Topic 7467
Provincial courts - Ontario - Supreme Court, High Court - Jurisdiction - Local judge - The Ontario Divisional Court held that a local judge of the Ontario High Court had no jurisdiction to hear a motion under rule 612 commenced by originating notice.
Words and Phrases
Actions brought in his county - The Ontario Divisional Court discussed the meaning of the phrase "actions brought in his county" as found in rule 212(1) of the Ontario Rules of Practice, R.R.O. 1980, Reg. 540.
Re Burch, 9 C.P.C. 109, consd. [para. 6].
Bendjy v. Munton,  O.R. 123, consd. [para. 6].
Re Gallant and Veltrusy Enterprises Ltd. (1981) 32 O.R.(2d) 716, consd. [para. 8].
Re Cairns v. McNairn (1927), 60 O.L.R. 194, consd. [para. 9].
Thurlow v. Canada Trust Company (1932), 41 O.W.N. 373, consd. [para. 10].
Re Levy and Jacobs, 61 O.L.R. 296, consd. [para. 13].
McDougall General Contractors Limited v. The Foundation Company of Ontario Limited et al.,  O.R. 822, consd. [para. 14].
Falvo Enterprises Ltd. v. Price Waterhouse Ltd., 34 O.R.(2d) 336, not folld. [para. 17].
Ontario Rules of Practice, R.R.O. 1980, Reg. 540, rule 2(b) [para. 5]; rule 212(1) [paras. 3, 11-19].
Judicature Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 223, sect. 1(a) [para. 4]; sect. 116(10)(h) [para. 16]; sect. 121(1) [para. 3].
Interpretation Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 219, sect. 6 [para. 4].
M.E. Marshman, for the appellant;
P.C. Strickland, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard before Van Camp, Potts and McKinlay, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court on April 10, 1984. The decision was delivered orally by Van Camp, J.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP