Board of Commerce case

Board of Commerce case
Board of Commerce case
Court	Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
Full case name	The Attorney General of Canada v The Attorney General of Alberta and others
Decided	November 8, 1921
Citation(s)	[1921] UKPC 107, [1922] 1 A.C. 191
Case history
Prior action(s)	In re Board of Commerce, 1920 CanLII 66, [1920] SCR 456(1 June 1920)
Appealed from	Supreme Court of Canada
Court membership
Judges sitting	Viscount Haldane, Lord Buckmaster, Viscount Cave, Lord Phillimore, Lord Carson
Case opinions
Decision by	Viscount Haldane

Last updated April 11, 2023

Re Board of Commerce Act 1919 and the Combines and Fair Prices Act 1919,^[1] 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.

Background

Following the end of the First World War, there was a rapid rise in the cost of living in the Canadian economy. In response, the Parliament of Canada passed the Board of Commerce Act, 1919^[2] and the Combines and Fair Prices Act, 1919.^[3] The assigned the Board of Commerce two main functions:

Investigate and restrain combinations, monopolies, trusts and mergers constituting a "combine."
Inquire into and enforce prohibitions against hoarding and profiteering.

In pursuit of its functions, the Board issued an order, prohibiting certain clothing manufacturers in Ottawa from charging higher than specified profit margins. That triggered a dispute as to the Acts' constitutionality, and the Board referred the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada by way of stated case under s. 32 of the Board of Commerce Act, posing the following reference questions:

Has the Board lawful authority to make the order?
Has the Board lawful authority to require the Registrar or other proper officer of the Supreme Court of Ontario to cause the order when issued to be made a rule of said Court?

Supreme Court of Canada

The Supreme Court split 3–3 on the question of the constitutionality of the legislation. Anglin J, joined by Davies CJ and Mignault J considered the Acts to be intra vires and repeated the observation he had previously made in the Insurance Act Reference:

When a matter primarily of civil rights has attained such dimensions that it affects the body politic of the Dominion and has become of national concern it has in that aspect of it, not only ceased to be "local and provincial" but has also lost its character as a matter of "civil rights in the province" and has thus so far ceased to be subject to provincial jurisdiction that Dominion legislation upon it under the "peace, order and good government" provision does not trench upon the exclusive provincial field and is, therefore, valid and paramount.^[4]

However, given the Privy Council's rulings in Citizen's Insurance Co. v. Parsons and the Local Prohibition case , he rested his decision to uphold the Acts on the basis of the federal trade and commerce power as well as on the federal power relating to peace, order and good government.^[5]

Idington, Duff, and Brodeur JJ, in separate opinions, held that they were ultra vires. In particular, Duff J had concerns as to the interpretation of the nature of the power of peace, order and good government:

In truth if this legislation can be sustained under the residuary clause, it is not easy to put a limit to the extent to which Parliament through the instrumentality of commissions (having a large discretion in assigning the limits of their own jurisdiction, see sec. 16), may from time to time in the vicissitudes of national trade, times of high prices, times of stagnation and low prices and so on, supersede the authority of the provincial legislatures. I am not convinced that it is a proper application of the reasoning to be found in the judgments on the subject of the drink legislation, to draw from it conclusions which would justify Parliament in any conceivable circumstance forcing upon a province a system of nationalization of industry.^[6]

An appeal was then filed with the Privy Council.

Privy Council

Lord Haldane, for the Council, found that the Acts were ultra vires the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada, as they could not be justified under any heading of federal power enumerated in s. 91 of the British North America Act, 1867.

Peace, order and good government

Haldane rejected the general power of peace, order and good government on the basis that it should be used only in circumstances "such as those of war or famine [where] the peace, order, and good Government of the Dominion might be imperilled under conditions so exceptional that they require legislation of a character in reality beyond anything provided for by the enumerated heads in either section 92 or section 91 itself."

Trade and commerce

Citing his previous decision in John Deere v Wharton,^[7] Haldane held that the power to regulate trade and commerce was meaningless unless it could be said to supplement another federal power.

Criminal law

In explaining why the federal criminal law power was not of help in the matter, Haldane also provided its first definition in Canadian jurisprudence by stating that it would apply "where the subject matter is one which by its very nature belongs to the domain of criminal jurisprudence."

Aftermath

Haldane's statement as to the nature of the criminal law power was later described by Lord Atkin in Proprietary Articles Trade Association v. Attorney General of Canada ^[8] as not being a definition. Instead, it was held to be "the criminal law in its widest sense," including the ability to make new crimes, and the only relevant standard to apply is whether the act would attract penal consequences. In addition, while the matter of the trade and commerce power did not need to be decided in that case, the Board declared that it wished to dissociate themselves from Haldane's previous comment: "No such restriction is properly to be inferred from that judgment."

Related Research Articles

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

Pith and substance is a legal doctrine in Canadian constitutional interpretation used to determine under which head of power a given piece of legislation falls. The doctrine is primarily used when a law is challenged on the basis that one level of government has encroached upon the exclusive jurisdiction of another level of government.

Canadian constitutional law is the area of Canadian law relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Canada by the courts. All laws of Canada, both provincial and federal, must conform to the Constitution and any laws inconsistent with the Constitution have no force or effect.

Reference Re Validity of Section 5(a) of the Dairy Industry Act (1949), also known as the Margarine Reference or as Canadian Federation of Agriculture v Quebec (AG), is a leading ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada, upheld on appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, on determining if a law is within the authority of the Parliament of Canada's powers relating to criminal law. In this particular case, the Court found that a regulation made by Parliament was ultra vires. Though the regulation contained sufficient punitive sanctions, the subject matter contained within it was not the kind that served a public purpose.

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.

Russell v R is a major Privy Council decision regarding the interpretation of the Constitution Act, 1867, and was one of the first cases explaining the nature of the peace, order and good government power in Canadian federalism. It expanded upon the jurisprudence that was previously discussed in Citizen's Insurance Co. v. Parsons.

Citizens Insurance Co of Canada v Parsons is a major Canadian constitutional case decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, at that time the highest court of appeal for the British Empire. The case decided a significant issue of the division of powers between the federal Parliament and the provincial legislatures. The approach taken to provincial power, as advocated by Premier Oliver Mowat of Ontario, began to set the constitutional framework for broad provincial powers and a reduction in the centralist vision of Confederation espoused by Prime Minister John A. Macdonald.

Ontario (AG) v Canada (AG), also known as the Local Prohibition Case, was a famous Canadian constitutional decision by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It was one of the first cases to enunciate core principles of the federal peace, order and good government power.

Ontario (AG) v Canada Temperance Federation was a famous Canadian constitutional decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and was among the first cases to examine the peace, order, and good government power of the Constitution Act, 1867. It was the first decision to bring back the "national concerns" branch of peace, order and good government since it was first suggested in the Local Prohibitions case.

Fort Frances Pulp and Paper v Manitoba Free Press 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.

Toronto Electric Commissioners v Snider is a Canadian constitutional decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council where the Council struck down the federal Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, precursor to the Canada Labour Code. The Court identified matters in relation to labour to be within the exclusive competence of the province in the property and civil rights power under section 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867. This decision is considered one of the high-water marks of the Council's interpretation of the Constitution in favour of the provinces.

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.

Reference Re Alberta Statutes, also known as the Alberta Press case and the Alberta Press Act Reference, is a landmark reference of the Supreme Court of Canada where several provincial laws, including one restricting the press, were struck down and the existence of an implied bill of rights protecting civil liberties such as a free press was first proposed.

Proprietary Articles Trade Association v Canada (AG), is a Canadian constitutional decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on the Constitution's criminal law power under section 91(27).

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.

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.

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.

Canada (AG) v British Columbia (AG), also known as the Reference as to constitutional validity of certain sections of The Fisheries Act, 1914 and the Fish Canneries Reference, is a significant decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in determining the boundaries of federal and provincial jurisdiction in Canada. It is also significant, in that it represented a major victory in the fight against discrimination aimed at Japanese Canadians, which was especially prevalent in British Columbia in the early part of the 20th century.

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.

Reference Re Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act is a decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on the constitutionality of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act as part of the bankruptcy and insolvency jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada.

References

↑ The Attorney General of Canada v The Attorney General of Alberta and others ("Board of Commerce case") [1921] UKPC 107 , [1922] 1 A.C. 191(8 November 1921), P.C. (on appeal from Canada)
↑ 9 & 10 George V, c. 37
↑ 9 & 10 George V, c. 45
↑ SCC Reference at p. 469, citing In Re Insurance Act, 1910, 1913 CanLII 65 at 310, 48 SCR 260(14 October 1913)
↑ SCC Reference at p. 471
↑ SCC Reference at p. 513
↑ The John Deere Plow Company Limited v Theodore F. Wharton and others [1914] UKPC 87 , [1915] AC 330(2 November 1914), P.C. (on appeal from British Columbia)
↑ The Proprietary Articles Trade Association and others v The Attorney-General of Canada and others [1931] UKPC 11 , [1931] AC 310(29 January 1931), P.C. (on appeal from Canada)