The Ontario Law Reports Volume 34; Cases Determined in the Court of Appeal and in the High Court of Justice for Ontario (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1916 Excerpt: ...of an appeal from the decision of the Divisional Court, was not shewn to exceed $4,000 (Privy Council Appeals Act, R.S.O. 1914, ch. 54, sec. 2, and Ontario Railway and Municipal Board Act, R.S.O. 1914, ch. 186, sec. 48 (8); and, therefore, the proposed appeal did not lie as of right; and a motion for approval of the security lodged for the purpose of an appeal was refused. Qutrrc, whether any questions but questions of fact were involved, and whether an appeal on a question of assessment was intended to be allowed. Motion by the company for approval of the security lodged by them upon a proposed appeal to His Majesty in His Privy Council from the decision of a Divisional Court of the Appellate Division, 8 O.W.N. 216, whereby it was declared that, in the opinion of the Court, the actual value of the lands of the company assessed should be fixed at $100,000 and that the amount of the business assessment of the company should be fixed at $210,000. The motion was heard by Magee, J.A., a Judge of the Appellate Division, in Chambers. Glyn Osier, for the company. Grayson Smith, for the town corporation. August 28. Magee, J.A.: --The company desire to appeal to His Majesty in his Privy Council from the decision of a Divisional Court, reported 8 O.W.N. 216, whereby the Court declared that it was of opinion that the actual value of the lands assessed should be fixed at $100,000 and that the amount of business assessment of the appellants should be fixed at $210,000. The Railway and Municipal Board's valuation of the buildings at $250,000 was not disputed. The company now ask for approval of the security on appeal and thereby incidentally of the appeal. It is claimed that "the matter in controversy" exceeds $4,000, and therefore our statutes (Privy Council Ap...