Fort Frances Pulp and Paper v Manitoba Free Press

Fort Frances Pulp and Paper v Manitoba Free Press
Fort Frances Pulp and Paper v Manitoba Free Press
Court	Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
Full case name	The Fort Frances Pulp and Paper Company Limited v The Manitoba Free Press Company Limited and others
Decided	25 July 1923
Citation(s)	[1923] UKPC 64, [1923] A.C. 695
Case history
Appealed from	Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario
Court membership
Judges sitting	Viscount Haldane, Lord Buckmaster, Lord Sumner, Lord Parmoor, Lord Phillimore
Case opinions
Decision by	Viscount Haldane
Keywords
	emergency powers

Last updated June 24, 2023

Fort Frances Pulp and Paper v Manitoba Free Press^[1] is a famous decision on the Canadian Constitution by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on the "emergency doctrine" of the peace, order and good government power in the British North America Act, 1867.

Background

During World War I, through orders in council under the War Measures Act, the Canadian government maintained strict control on the supply and price of goods. After the war had ended, the controls were continued in certain key sectors, including newsprint, under an order in council made on 20 December 1919.^[2] Controls on the supply and price of paper had been vested in the Paper Control Tribunal under an order in council made on 16 September 1918, and the Canadian Parliament passed an act in 1919 to place the Tribunal on a statutory footing for it to complete its work on all outstanding issues arising prior to the declaration of peace.

The Manitoba Free Press , a Winnipeg newspaper publisher, purchased paper from Fort Frances Pulp and Paper. Orders made by the Paper Control Tribunal on 8 July 1920 provided for a reduction of the price that had been paid, representing margins in excess of the regulated price. The Manitoba Free Press brought an action against Fort Frances in the Supreme Court of Ontario to recover the specified amount. Fort Frances counterclaimed for an amount equal to the market price of the paper, less sums that had already been paid.

Lower courts

At the Trial Division, Riddell J gave judgment for the plaintiffs by holding that the orders of the Tribunal were valid. The counterclaim was consequentially dismissed. He also noted that "all the powers of the Minister, Controller and Tribunal were intra vires and valid, even in a state of profound peace."

The trial judge's ruling was upheld on appeal to the Appellate Division although it considered that the question was one of contract, as Fort Frances had issued invoices at the specified prices and the Free Press had paid them on the basis that the prices were provisional and subject to orders to be made by the Paper Control Tribunal. As a result, it was not necessary to question the validity of those orders.

Fort Frances appealed the ruling to the Privy Council.

Privy Council

The judgment was upheld although the Board noted that it preferred the trial judge's reasoning to that of the appeal court. However, it did not necessarily agree with Riddell J's view as to how far the federal power could extend.

Viscount Haldane held that it was not in the Board's power to determine if there was a "national emergency" and that it was entirely in the authority of the Canadian Parliament to determine its existence. Relying on its recent ruling in the Board of Commerce case, he stated that an emergency is determined by common sense and that since World War I was clearly a "national emergency," there was sufficient reason to invoke the "emergency doctrine:"

That the basic instrument on which the character of the entire constitution depends should be construed as providing for such centralised power in an emergency situation follows from the manifestation in the language of the Act of the principle that the instrument has among its purposes to provide for the State regarded as a whole, and for the expression and influence of its public opinion as such.^[3]

Nonetheless, any use of the emergency power must be temporary. However, it was for the federal government to decide when the state of emergency was over:

...very clear evidence that the crisis has wholly passed away would be required to justify the judiciary, even when the question raised was one of ultra vires which it had to decide, in overruling the decision of the Government that exceptional measures were still requisite.^[4]

In that regard, the Board agreed with a recent ruling of the US Supreme Court on the question,^[5] which is notable as being the first of only two times that the Board cited the decisions of that court.^[6]

Impact

This decision, like many others of its time, completely ignored the "national concern" doctrine established earlier in Russell v. The Queen , but it was significant in explaining how far the "emergency doctrine" could extend in times of emergency and effectively incorporating the principle of salus populi est suprema lex .^[7] Haldane noted:

•...it does not follow that in a very different case, such as that of sudden danger to social order arising from the outbreak of a great war, the Parliament of the Dominion cannot act under other powers which may well be implied in the constitution. The reasons given in the Board of Commerce Case recognize exceptional cases where such a power may be implied.^[8]

Therefore, in time of an emergency, provincial powers can be overridden for the peace, order and good government of Canada as a whole.^[9] In addition, the discretion given to the Parliament of Canada as to how long an emergency continues was exercised again in the period after World War II.^[10]

Related Research Articles

Canadian federalism involves the current nature and historical development of the federal system in Canada.

The Implied Bill of Rights is a judicial theory in Canadian jurisprudence that recognizes that certain basic principles are underlying the Constitution of Canada.

George Howard Ferguson, PC was the ninth premier of Ontario, from 1923 to 1930. He was a Conservative member of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from 1905 to 1930 who represented the eastern provincial riding of Grenville.

<i>Winnipeg Free Press</i> Canadian newspaper

The Winnipeg Free Press is a daily broadsheet newspaper in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. It provides coverage of local, provincial, national, and international news, as well as current events in sports, business, and entertainment and various consumer-oriented features, such as homes and automobiles appear on a weekly basis.

The court system of Canada forms the country's judiciary, formally known as "The King on the Bench", which interprets the law and is made up of many courts differing in levels of legal superiority and separated by jurisdiction. Some of the courts are federal in nature, while others are provincial or territorial.

The Province of Ontario is governed by a unicameral legislature, the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which operates in the Westminster system of government. The political party that wins the largest number of seats in the legislature normally forms the government, and the party's leader becomes premier of the province, i.e., the head of the government.

Section 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867, also known as the property and civil rights power, grants the provincial legislatures of Canada the authority to legislate on:

13. Property and Civil Rights in the Province.

St Catharines Milling and Lumber Co v R was the leading case on Aboriginal title in Canada for more than 80 years. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, affirming a ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada, held that Aboriginal title over land was allowed only at the Crown's pleasure and could be taken away at any time. The case, involving Ojibway Treaty No. 3, which had never been previously litigated before any court, is a leading decision in Canada on the differences between the division of legislative powers and property rights under the Constitution of Canada.

Re Board of Commerce Act 1919 and the Combines and Fair Prices Act 1919, commonly known as the Board of Commerce case, is a Canadian constitutional decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in which the "emergency doctrine" under the federal power of peace, order and good government was first created.

The Double aspect doctrine in Canadian constitutional law is one that allows for laws to be created by both provincial and federal governments in relation to the same subject matter. Typically, the federalist system assigns subject matters of legislation to a single head of power. However, certain matters have several dimensions to them, such that for one purpose the matter will fall to one head of power, while for another purpose, it will fall to the other. For example, highway traffic laws fall into the property and civil rights power of the province, but equally, can be a criminal offence which is in the criminal law power of the federal government.

R v Eastern Terminal Elevator Co is an early constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the Constitution's Trade and Commerce power.

<i>Combines Investigation Act</i> Canadian act of Parliament

The Combines Investigation Act, 1923, was a Canadian Act of Parliament that regulated certain anti-competitive corporate business practices. It prohibited monopolies, misleading advertising, bid-rigging, price fixing, and other means of limiting competition.

Section 91(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867, also known as the trade and commerce power, grants the Parliament of Canada the authority to legislate on:

2. The Regulation of Trade and Commerce.

The Matrimonial Causes Act 1857 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The Act reformed the law on divorce, moving litigation from the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts to the civil courts, establishing a model of marriage based on contract rather than sacrament and widening the availability of divorce beyond those who could afford to bring proceedings for annulment or to promote a private Bill. It was one of the Matrimonial Causes Acts 1857 to 1878.

Canada (AG) v Ontario (AG), also known as In re the Regulation and Control of Aeronautics in Canada and the Aeronautics Reference, is a decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on the interpretation of the Canadian Constitution. Lord Sankey decided in the case that the federal government has the authority to govern the subject of aeronautics, including licensing of pilots, aircraft, and commercial services and regulations for navigation and safety.

Abitibi Power and Paper Company Limited was a forest products business based in Montreal, Quebec, that was founded in 1914. The firm was a mainstay of the Canadian newsprint industry in the first half of the 20th century, and now forms part of Abitibi-Consolidated.

Nadan v R is a key ruling of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in determining the competence of the Parliament of Canada with respect to the restrictions laid out in the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865, and whether it possessed extraterritorial jurisdiction.

Canada (AG) v Ontario (AG)[1937] UKPC 6, [1937] A.C. 326, also known as the Labour Conventions Reference, is a landmark decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council concerning the distinct nature of federal and provincial jurisdiction in Canadian federalism.

Section 92(14) of the Constitution Act, 1867, also known as the administration of justice power, grants the provincial legislatures of Canada the authority to legislate on:

14. The Administration of Justice in the Province, including the Constitution, Maintenance, and Organization of Provincial Courts, both of Civil and of Criminal Jurisdiction, and including Procedure in Civil Matters in those Courts.

References

↑ The Fort Frances Pulp and Paper Company Limited v The Manitoba Free Press Company Limited and others [1923] UKPC 64, [1923] A.C. 695(25 July 1923), P.C. (on appeal from Ontario)
↑ "Order in Council, 20 December 1919". Canada Gazette . 1919-12-27. pp. 1928–1929. Retrieved 2013-01-02.
↑ Fort Frances 1923, p. 704
↑ Fort Frances 1923, p. 706
↑ Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co., 251 U.S. 146 (1919)
↑ Marx 1970 , p. 60.The only other occasion was in The Attorney General of Ontario v The Reciprocal Insurers having no licences under the Dominion Insurance Act and others ("Reciprocal Insurers case") [1924] UKPC 5 at 338, [1924] A.C. 328(25 January 1924), P.C. (on appeal from Ontario), citing Hammer v. Dagenhart , 247 U.S. 251 (1918)
↑ Deschênes 1992 , p. 1187
↑ Fort Frances 1923, p. 703
↑ Marx 1970 , p. 61
↑ Marx 1970 , p. 64, noting the passage of The National Emergency Transitional Powers Act, S.C. 1945, c. 25, and The Continuation of Transitional Measures Act, S.C. 1947, c. 16.