In Integrity Home and Cottage Inc. v. Clegg (Div Court, 2024) the Divisional Court comments in the infrequency of 'jurisdictional' errors, here when applying the appellate standard of review of correctness:
[34] The Respondents argue that Sutherland J. exceeded his jurisdiction in awarding damages for Change Orders 6 and 7. As a jurisdictional error, this court must review it on a standard of correctness.
[35] I disagree. As courts have pointed out in a number of cases, true jurisdictional errors are rare and appellate courts should be wary of branding something as jurisdictional in order to apply less deference to a lower court’s findings: see for example Quebec (Procureure generale) v. Guerin, 2017 SCC 42, [2017] 2 S.C.R. 3, at para. 32.
[36] In making the finding he did, Sutherland J. had to decide both the scope of Salmers J.’s determinations and whether Change Orders 6 and 7 were covered by those determinations. He then had to decide whether, under the Contract, the invoices covered by those change orders should be paid. These findings are findings of mixed fact and law, which should only be set aside if Sutherland J. committed a palpable and overriding error.
The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.
