Dow v Black

Last updated

Dow v Black
British North America Act, 1867.jpg
The British North America Act, 1867 set out the powers of the federal and provincial governments
Court Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
Full case nameJames Dow and others v William T. Black and others
DecidedMarch 5, 1875
Citation(s)(1874-75), 6 AC 272, [1875] UKPC 17, 1 Cart BNA 95 (PC)
Case history
Prior action(s)The Queen v. Dow (1873), 14 NBR 300, 1 Cart BNA 108 (NB SC)
Appealed fromSupreme Court of New Brunswick Maple Leaf (from roundel).svg
Court membership
Judges sitting Sir James W. Colville
Lord Justice James
Lord Justice Mellish
Sir Montague E. Smith
Case opinions
Province can enact a law authorising municipality to fund an inter-provincial railway
Decision bySir James W. Colvile
Keywords
Constitutional law; division of powers; inter-provincial railways; direct taxation; matters of a local and private nature
R v Dow
CourtSupreme Court of New Brunswick
Full case nameThe Queen v Dow and others
DecidedFebruary 22, 1873
Citation(s)(1873), 14 NBR 300, 1 Cart BNA 108 (NB SC)
Case history
Appealed toJudicial Committee of the Privy Council
Subsequent action(s)Appeal allowed
Court membership
Judges sitting Ritchie C.J.
Allen J.
Weldon J.
Fisher J.
Case opinions
Province cannot enact a law authorising municipality to fund an inter-provincial railway
Decision byAllen J.; Ritchie C.J. and Weldon J. concurring
Fisher J. (dissenting)
Keywords
Constitutional law; division of powers; inter-provincial railways; direct taxation; matters of a local and private nature

Dow v Black is a Canadian constitutional law decision. Decided in 1875, it was one of the first major cases examining in detail the division of powers between the federal Parliament and the provincial Legislatures, set out in the Constitution Act, 1867 (originally known as the British North America Act, 1867). The issue was whether a provincial statute which authorised the municipality of St. Stephen, New Brunswick to issue a debenture to fund a railway connecting to the United States was within provincial jurisdiction as a local tax matter, or whether it intruded on federal jurisdiction over inter-provincial and international railways.

Contents

The case was decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, at that time the court of last resort for Canada within the British Empire. The Judicial Committee allowed an appeal from the Supreme Court of New Brunswick and held that the legislation was within provincial jurisdiction as a matter of local taxation, coming under sections 92(2) and 92(16) of the Constitution Act, 1867. The statute did not intrude on federal jurisdiction over inter-jurisdictional railways, under s. 91(29) and s. 92(10) of the Constitution Act, 1867. [1] [2]

Facts

St. Stephen is a town in Charlotte County, in southern New Brunswick. Debec, New Brunswick is north of St. Stephen, in Carleton County on the border with the United States. Houlton, Maine is close to Debec, some 125 km north-west of St. Stephen.

In June 1867, a few weeks before the Constitution Act, 1867 came into effect, the Legislature of New Brunswick passed an Act incorporating the Houlton Branch Railway Company, authorising it to build a railway from Debec to the international border with the United States, connecting with Houlton. [3] The proposed branch line would also connect to the St. Andrews and Quebec Railway, which eventually became the New Brunswick and Canada Railway.

In 1870, the town of Houlton offered a bonus of $30,000 to any company which would build a railway connecting Houlton with the terminus of the New Brunswick and Canada Railway near Debec, to be completed by the end of 1872. The Houlton Branch Railway Company was prepared to build the railway, on condition that the town of St. Stephen also pay a bonus of $15,000. The proposed railway would not extend to St. Stephen, but would connect to existing railways which connected to St. Stephen. [4]

The New Brunswick Legislature then passed an Act authorising the county of Charlotte to issue debentures to raise the $15,000, to be paid by municipal assessments on the real and personal property of the inhabitants of St. Stephen, [5] provided a majority of two-thirds of the ratepayers of St. Stephen approved the debenture. [4] After the Act was passed, on August 11, 1870 there was a meeting of the ratepayers of St. Stephen, as required by the statute. A majority voted in favour of the proposal and the County of Charlotte issued the debentures. The general sessions of the County of Charlotte then laid the necessary assessment on the residents of St. Stephen to pay the interest on the debentures. [6]

Some residents of St. Stephen who opposed the debenture then challenged the assessment in the New Brunswick courts. [6] The lead plaintiff was William T. Black, a local doctor, [7] while the proponents of the debenture were represented by James Dow, the mayor of St. Stephen [8] and editor of the St. Stephen Journal. [9]

Decision of the New Brunswick Supreme Court

Summary

The challenge was brought by way of an application for certiorari in the Supreme Court of New Brunswick to quash the warrant of assessment, on the grounds that the provincial Act related to a railway extending beyond the limits of the Province and was therefore not within the constitutional authority of the Legislature of New Brunswick. In Trinity term 1872, the Supreme Court granted an interim rule nisi to quash the warrant of assessment. In the fall of 1872, the Supreme Court heard argument and reserved judgment on whether to confirm that initial decision. On February 22, 1873, in a 3-1 decision the Court held that the Act was unconstitutional and granted a rule absolute to quash the warrant of assessment. [10]

Majority decision of Justice Allen

Justice John Campbell Allen, whose judgement was overturned by the Judicial Committee. John Campbell Allen.png
Justice John Campbell Allen, whose judgement was overturned by the Judicial Committee.

Mr. Justice Allen delivered the majority decision of the Court. He held that there was no doubt that the railway extended beyond the province of New Brunswick, and therefore fell under exclusive federal jurisdiction under the combined effect of s. 92(10)(a) and s. 91(29) of the Constitution Act, 1867. Since the purpose of the provincial statute was to provide for the construction and completion of a railway extending beyond the limits of the province, it fell within federal jurisdiction. The funds were necessary to the completion of the railway. If the act were within provincial jurisdiction, the Province would have the power to secure the existence or completion of inter-jurisdictional undertakings. [11]

Dissenting opinion of Justice Fisher

Justice Charles Fisher, whose dissenting judgement was upheld by the Judicial Committee. CharlesFisher23.jpg
Justice Charles Fisher, whose dissenting judgement was upheld by the Judicial Committee.

Mr. Justice Fisher dissented. Prior to his appointment to the court, he had been a Father of Confederation and participated in both the Quebec Conference and the London Conference which had produced the terms of Confederation and the text of the Constitution Act, 1867. He distinguished between the pre-Confederation New Brunswick statute which incorporated the railway company and the subsequent statute authorising the town of St. Stephen to contribute to the financing of the railway. The pre-Confederation statute remained in force by virtue of s. 129 of the Constitution Act, 1867. That statute was the authority for the construction of the railway. The subsequent statute simply provided a way for the inhabitants of St. Stephen to contribute to the construction of that portion of the railway which was within New Brunswick. In his opinion, that financial arrangement was a purely local matter and therefore would be within provincial jurisdiction. He would have ruled the statute was constitutional. [12]

Decision of the Judicial Committee

Judah P. Benjamin, QC, Counsel for the appellants Judah P Benjamin crop.jpg
Judah P. Benjamin, QC, Counsel for the appellants
Edward Fry, QC, counsel for the respondents. SirEdwardFry.jpg
Edward Fry, QC, counsel for the respondents.

The supporters of the railway proposal then appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, at that time the court of last resort for Canada within the British Empire. (The Supreme Court of Canada had not yet been created.) [13] Judah P. Benjamin, Q.C. (former Attorney General of the Confederate States of America) and William Grantham acted for the appellants. Edward Fry, Q.C., and Mr Bompas acted for the respondents.

On March 5, 1875, the Judicial Committee allowed the appeal, ruling that the New Brunswick Act was within provincial authority. Sir James W. Colvile wrote the decision for the Committee. He held that the provincial Act did not relate to inter-provincial railways, a subject matter reserved to the federal Parliament by s. 91(29) and 92(10) of the Constitution Act, 1867. It was true that the railway company itself had been incorporated by an Act of the New Brunswick Legislature, shortly before the Constitution Act, 1867 came into force. [14] However, the taxation statute in issue in the appeal did not relate to the construction of the railway, nor did it any way affect the corporate structure of the railway company. It simply enabled the majority of the inhabitants of the parish of St. Stephen to raise a subsidy for the railway by local taxation. [15]

The Committee also rejected a second argument, namely that the taxation powers of the province were restricted to general powers to tax throughout the province and could not be used to authorise taxes for a local municipal purpose. The Province's taxation powers under s. 92(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867 are not so limited. Alternatively, even if the tax did not fall within s. 92(2), it would clearly be a law of a local or private nature within the meaning of s. 92(16) of the Constitution Act, 1867, and therefore within provincial authority on that basis. [16]

As was the practice of the Judicial Committee at that time, there were no dissenting reasons from other members of the committee. [17]

Significance of the decision

Following the abolition of Canadian appeals to the Judicial Committee, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada directed the Department of Justice to prepare a compilation of all constitutional cases decided by the Judicial Committee on the construction and interpretation of the British North America Act, 1867 (now the Constitution Act, 1867), for the assistance of the Canadian Bench and Bar. [18] : iii  This case was included in the three volume collection of constitutional decisions of the Judicial Committee. [18] : 19 

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 theory in Canadian jurisprudence which proposed that as a consequence of the British North America Act, certain important civil liberties could not be abrogated by the government. The theory was never adopted in a majority decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, and was rejected by the court in 1978. The enactment and interpretation of the statutory Bill of Rights, and later the constitutional Charter of Rights and Freedoms, provided alternative formulations of the limits applicable to civil liberties.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">St. Stephen, New Brunswick</span> Town in New Brunswick, Canada

St. Stephen is a Canadian town in Charlotte County, New Brunswick, situated on the east bank of the St. Croix River around the intersection of New Brunswick Route 170 and the southern terminus of New Brunswick Route 3. The St. Croix River marks a section of the Canada–United States border, forming a natural border between Calais, Maine and St. Stephen. U.S. Route 1 parallels the St. Croix river for a few miles, and is accessed from St. Stephen by three cross-border bridges.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Charles Fisher (Canadian politician)</span> Canadian politician

Charles Fisher was a politician and jurist of New Brunswick, Canada. Fisher was a leading Reformer of his day who headed the first responsible government in New Brunswick from 1854 to 1861.

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.

<i>Russell v The Queen</i> 1882 Canadian constitutional law case

Russell v The Queen is a Canadian constitutional law decision dealing with the power of the federal Parliament. The case was decided in 1882 by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, at that time the highest court in the British Empire, including Canada. The Judicial Committee held that the Canada Temperance Act was valid federal legislation under the peace, order and good government power, set out in section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867. The case expanded upon the jurisprudence that was previously discussed in Citizen's Insurance Co. v. Parsons.

<i>Citizens Insurance Co of Canada v Parsons</i> Canadian constitutional law case – 1881

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.

<i>Canada Temperance Act</i> Repealed Canadian statute

The Canada Temperance Act, also known as the Scott Act, was an Act of the Parliament of Canada passed in 1878, which provided for a national framework for municipalities to opt in by plebiscite to a scheme of prohibition. It was repealed in 1984.

<i>R v Coote</i> Canadian constitutional law case – 1873

R v Coote is a Canadian constitutional law decision in 1873 dealing with the powers of the provinces under the British North America Act, 1867. The point in issue was whether Quebec had the constitutional authority to create a mandatory inquiry power for provincial fire commissioners.

<i>LUnion St Jacques de Montreal v Bélisle</i> Canadian constitutional law case - 1874

L'Union St. Jacques de Montreal v Bélisle is a Canadian constitutional law decision by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in 1874. The issue was whether a provincial statute which altered the contractual liabilities of a benevolent organization, reducing its financial obligations to two widows, was within the constitutional authority of the province of Quebec under the British North America Act, 1867.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867</span> Provision of the Constitution of Canada

Section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867 is a provision in the Constitution of Canada that sets out the legislative powers of the federal Parliament. The federal powers in section 91 are balanced by the list of provincial legislative powers set out in section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867. The dynamic tension between these two sets of legislative authority is generally known as the "division of powers". The interplay between the two lists of powers have been the source of much constitutional litigation since the Confederation of Canada in 1867.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867</span> Provision of the Constitution of Canada

Section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867 is a provision in the Constitution of Canada that sets out the legislative powers of the legislatures of the provinces of Canada. The provincial powers in section 92 are balanced by the list of federal legislative powers set out in section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867. The dynamic tension between these two sets of legislative authority is generally known as the "division of powers". The interplay between the two lists of powers have been the source of much constitutional litigation since Confederation of Canada in 1867.

<i>Cushing v Dupuy</i> Canadian insolvency law case in the JCPC

Cushing v Dupuy is a Canadian constitutional law case decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in 1880, at that time the highest court of appeal for the British Empire, including Canada. The case was on appeal from the courts of Quebec, and dealt with the following issues:

<i>Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v Notre Dame de Bonsecours</i> Canadian constitutional law case - JCPC

Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v Notre Dame de Bonsecours is a Canadian constitutional law decision, dealing with the powers of the provinces under the Constitution Act, 1867. The point in issue was whether the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, a federally regulated railway, was required to comply with an order issued by a municipality under provincial law. The municipal order required the CPR Co. to clean a ditch beside its rail line, which had become blocked and flooded neighbouring land, under penalty of $20 per day until the ditch was cleared.

<i>Attorney General for Quebec v Queen Insurance Company</i> Canadian constitutional law case – 1878

Attorney General for Quebec v Queen Insurance Company is a Canadian constitutional law decision in 1878, dealing with the taxation and licensing powers of the provinces under the federal-provincial division of powers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867</span> Provision of the Constitution of Canada

Section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867 is a provision of the Constitution of Canada relating to the appointment of judges of the provincial superior, district and county courts. It provides that the judges of those courts are appointed by the Governor General of Canada. By constitutional convention, the Governor General exercises that power on the advice of the federal Cabinet

<i>Madden v Nelson and Fort Sheppard Railway Co.</i> Canadian constitutional law - federal railways

Madden v Nelson and Fort Sheppard Railway Co. is a Canadian constitutional law decision, dealing with the application of provincial laws to federally regulated railways. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, at that time the highest appellate body in the British Empire, held that the provinces could not impose higher safety standards on federally regulated railways than were set out in federal law.

<i>Bourgoin v La Compagnie du Chemin de Fer de Montréal, Ottawa & Occidental, and Ross</i> Canadian constitutional law case – 1880

Bourgoin v La Compagnie du Chemin de Fer de Montréal, Ottawa & Occidental, and Ross is a Canadian constitutional law case decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, at that time the highest court of appeal for the British Empire. Although the case initially dealt with the power of arbitrators under the federal Railway Act, the underlying constitutional issue was the relationship between federal and provincial regulation of a railway in Quebec. The Judicial Committee ruled that the province could not unilaterally take over ownership and regulation of a federally regulated railway.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Section 101 of the Constitution Act, 1867</span> Provision of the Constitution of Canada

Section 101 of the Constitution Act, 1867 is a provision of the Constitution of Canada giving the federal Parliament the power to create the Supreme Court of Canada and the federal courts. Although Parliament created the Supreme Court by an ordinary federal statute in 1875, the Court is partially entrenched by the amending formula set out in the Constitution Act, 1982. The composition of the Court can only be changed by a unanimous constitutional amendment, passed by the two houses of Parliament, and all of the provincial legislative assemblies.

<i>Dobie v Temporalities Board</i> Canadian constitutional law case – 1881

Dobie v Temporalities Board is a Canadian constitutional law case. It was decided in 1881 by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, at that time the highest court in the British Empire, including Canada. The case concerned the power of the provinces and the federal Parliament to deal with legal rights created by statutes enacted prior to Confederation in 1867.

References

  1. ↑ Dow v Black (1874-75), 6 AC 272, [1875] UKPC 17 (PC).
  2. ↑ Constitution Act, 1867, 30 & 31 Victoria, c. 3 (UK); RSC 1985, App. II, No. 5.
  3. ↑ An Act to incorporate the Houlton Branch Railway Company, SNB 1867, c. 54, s. 1.
  4. 1 2 Dow v. Black, p. 4 (UKPC), p. 279 (AC).
  5. ↑ An Act to authorize the issuing of debentures on the credit of the lower district of the parish of St. Stephen, SNB 1870, c. 47, Preamble.
  6. 1 2 Dow v Black, p. 5 (UKPC), p. 279 (AC).
  7. ↑ Rev. Isaac Case Knowlton, Annals of Calais, Maine and St. Stephen, New Brunswick; including the village of Milltown, Me., and the present town of Milltown, N.B. (Calais: J.A. Sears, 1875), pp. 116, 119.
  8. ↑ J. Gaudet, "Charlotte County Government" (Heritage Charlotte, 2005; revised, 2018, v.7.1), p.42.
  9. ↑ Annals, p. 133.
  10. ↑ The Queen v. Dow (1873), 14 NBR 300 (NB SC), at pp. 300-301, 313, 1 Cart BNA 108, at pp. 108-109, 113.
  11. ↑ The Queen v. Dow, at pp. 307-309 (NBR), at pp. 112-113 (Cart).
  12. ↑ The Queen v. Dow, at pp. 312-313 (NBR), at pp. 115-116 (Cart).
  13. ↑ James G. Snell and Frederick Vaughan, The Supreme Court of Canada: History of the Institution (Toronto: Osgoode Society, 1985), pp. 4–9, 42.
  14. ↑ Dow v. Black, at pp. 277-278 (AC), pp. 2-3 (UKPC).
  15. ↑ Dow v. Black, at p. 281 (AC), pp. 7-8 (UKPC).
  16. ↑ Dow v. Black, at p. 282 (AC), pp. 8-9 (UKPC).
  17. ↑ Peter Hogg and Wade Wright, Constitutional Law of Canada, 5th ed., supplemented (Toronto: Thomson Reuters, looseleaf current to 2023), para. 8:2.
  18. 1 2 Richard A. Olmsted, Q.C. (ed.), Decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council relating to the British North America Act, 1867 and the Canadian Constitution, 1867–1954, vol. 1 (Ottawa: Queen's Printer and Controller of Stationery, 1954).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.