Margarine Reference

Last updated
Margarine Reference
Royal Arms of the United Kingdom (Privy Council).svg
Court Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
Full case nameThe Canadian Federation of Agriculture v The Attorney-General of Quebec and others
Decided16 October 1950
Citation(s)[1950] UKPC 31, [1951] AC 179
Case history
Appealed fromReference re Validity of Section 5 (a) Dairy Industry Act, 1948 CanLII 2, [1949] SCR 1(14 December 1948), Supreme Court (Canada)
Court membership
Judges sitting Lord Porter, Lord Simonds, Lord Morton of Henryton, Lord MacDermott, Lord Radcliffe
Case opinions
Decision by Lord Morton of Henryton

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), [1] 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.

Contents

The case was decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on appeal from the Supreme Court of Canada, as the cause for appeal arose before the abolition of such appeals in 1949. [2] The decision by Rand J was upheld in 1951, and the case has been cited in federalism disputes many times since. [3]

Background

Under Section 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867, Parliament receives exclusive powers to legislate in regard to the criminal law. The precise meaning of the criminal law power, however, had proved controversial. In the Board of Commerce case , the JCPC seemingly chose to define criminal law power as limited to prohibiting only what was criminal in 1867 (the year of Canadian Confederation). [4] This was overturned in Proprietary Articles Trade Assn. v. A.-G. Can. (1931), in which it was found criminal law means Parliament could legitimately prohibit any act "with penal consequences." The problem with the latter decision was that it gave Parliament an excuse to legislate in regard to many matters. [5]

The matter came before the courts again with the Margarine Reference, where the following reference question was posed to the Supreme Court of Canada:

Is Section 5(a) of the Dairy Industry Act-R.S.C. 1927, Chapter 45 Revised Statutes of Canada [6] (p1) ultra vires of the Parliament of Canada either in whole or in part and if so in what particular or particulars and to what extent?

In this case, Parliament had legislated against the production and trade of margarine, in order to give dairy businesses assurances that margarine would not threaten their existence. [7] This legislation actually dated back to 1886, and it was claimed in the law that the real purpose was to target a product that was "injurious to health." [8] If true, that would have made margarine a fair target for criminal law, but the federal government admitted before the courts that the assessment was simply false. [9]

At the Supreme Court of Canada

The Court ruled:

  • the prohibition of importation of the goods mentioned in the section is intra vires of Parliament as legislation in relation to foreign trade (Locke J dissented, maintaining that the entire section was ultra vires while expressing no opinion as to the power of Parliament to ban importation by appropriate legislation).
  • the prohibition of manufacture, offer, sale, or possession for sale of the goods mentioned is ultra vires of Parliament, as it is legislation in relation to property (Rinfret CJ and Kerwin J dissenting).

Rand J, in his concurring opinion for the majority, struck down the prohibition on production of margarine on the grounds that it was not valid criminal law. The prohibition on importation of margarine, however, was upheld under the federal Trade and Commerce power. He outlined a test to determine if a law fell under the criminal law:

A crime is an act which the law, with appropriate penal sanctions, forbids; but as prohibitions are not enacted in a vacuum, we can properly look for some evil or injurious or undesirable effect upon the public against which the law is directed. That effect may be in relation to social, economic or political interests; and the legislature has had in mind to suppress the evil or to safeguard the interest threatened. [6] (p49)

Two requirements must be met for a law to be criminal in nature:

  1. the law must be a prohibition with a penal sanction.
  2. the law must be directed towards a public purpose.

Rand also listed a few objectives that would qualify as legitimate public purposes, namely "Public peace, order, security, health, morality."

The ruling was appealed to the Privy Council, on the grounds that the legislation was valid under the following:

  1. the federal power under s. 91(2).
  2. the federal power under s. 91(27).
  3. the residual power for peace, order and good government.
  4. the power relating to agriculture under s. 95.

At the Privy Council

The Supreme Court ruling was upheld by the Board, which responded to the points appealed thus:

  • as noted in R. v. Eastern Terminal Elevator Co. , the trade and commerce power does not extend to individual forms of trade and commerce confined within a province
  • the criminal law power is not unlimited, in agreeing with Rand J's observation:

The public interest in this regulation lies obviously in the trade effects: it is annexed to the legislative subject matter and follows the latter in its allocation to the one or other legislature. But to use it as a support for the legislation in the aspect of criminal law would mean that the Dominion under its authority in that field, by forbidding the manufacture or sale of particular products, could, in what it considered a sound trade policy, not only interdict a substantial part of the economic life of one section of Canada but do so for the benefit of that of another. Whatever the scope of the regulation of interprovincial trade, it is hard to conceive a more insidious form of encroachment on a complementary jurisdiction. [6] (p50)

  • in citing the Labour Conventions Reference, [10] the Board noted that the issue fell within the provincial power over property and civil rights
  • s. 95 did not apply, as the Act did not interfere with the agricultural operations of farmers

See also

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.

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.

<i>Russell v R</i> 1882 Canadian constitutional law case

Russell v R is a Canadian constitutional law decision dealing with the power of the federal Parliament. The case was decided 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>Local Prohibition Case</i>

Ontario (AG) v Canada (AG), also known as the Local Prohibition Case, is a significant Canadian constitutional decision by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, at that time the highest court in the British Empire, including Canada. It was one of the first cases to enunciate core principles of the federal peace, order and good government power.

<i>Board of Commerce case</i>

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.

<i>General Motors of Canada Ltd v City National Leasing</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

General Motors of Canada Ltd v City National Leasing is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the scope of the Trade and Commerce power of the Constitution Act, 1867 as well as the interpretation of the Ancillary doctrine.

<i>Proprietary Articles Trade Association v Canada (AG)</i> Canadian constitutional law case in the JCPC

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).

<i>Westendorp v R</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Westendorp v R, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 43 was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the scope of the federal Parliament's criminal law power under section 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867. A unanimous Court found that a municipal by-law that prohibited standing in the street for the purpose of prostitution was in the nature of a criminal law prohibition and therefore ultra vires of the provincial constitutional authority. The decision surprised many legal scholars who considered it to be inconsistent with previous Supreme Court cases where provincial laws of a moral nature were upheld under the provincial power. This was also the first case where the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was cited in argument to the Supreme Court, although the Charter argument was ultimately abandoned during the hearing.

<i>Reference re Firearms Act</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Reference Re Firearms Act is a leading constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the division of powers regarding firearms legislation and the Canadian Firearms Registry. A unanimous Court held that the federal Firearms Act was constitutionally valid under the federal criminal law power.

<i>Caloil Inc v Canada (AG)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Caloil Inc v Canada (AG) is a leading constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the Trade and Commerce power under section 91(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867. The Court upheld a federal law prohibiting the transport or sale of imported oil in a certain region of Ontario.

<i>Siemens v Manitoba (AG)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Siemens v Manitoba (AG), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 6, 2003 SCC 3 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on whether provincial plebiscite, used to determine if video lottery terminals (VLTs) should be banned from individual communities, are constitutional. The Court held that the plebiscites were a valid exercises of the province's power to legislate on matters "of a local nature" under section 92(16) of the Constitution Act, 1867, and that the plebiscite did not violate the rights of the VLT owners under sections 2(b), 7 and 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Section 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867, also known as the criminal law power, grants the Parliament of Canada the authority to legislate on:

27. The Criminal Law, except the Constitution of Courts of Criminal Jurisdiction, but including the Procedure in Criminal Matters.

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.

<i>Ward v Canada (AG)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Ward v Canada (AG) is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on federalism. The Court re-articulated the "pith and substance analysis and upheld the regulations prohibiting sale of "blueback" seals for the valid purpose of "curtailing commercial hunting of young seals to preserve the fisheries as an economic resource".

<i>British Coal Corp v R</i> Case of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council

British Coal Corp v R is a decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in which the authority of the Canadian Parliament to prohibit appeals to the JCPC in criminal cases was upheld.

The passage of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982 allowed for the provision of challenging the constitutionality of laws governing prostitution law in Canada in addition to interpretative case law. Other legal proceedings have dealt with ultra vires issues. In 2013, three provisions of the current law were overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada, with a twelve-month stay of effect. In June 2014, the Government introduced amending legislation in response.

<i>Reference Re Assisted Human Reproduction Act</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Reference Re Assisted Human Reproduction Act is an appeal from the Quebec Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on a reference question posed as to the constitutional validity of the Assisted Human Reproduction Act that had been passed by the Parliament of Canada.

<i>Fish Canneries Reference</i>

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.

<i>Quebec (AG) v Canada (AG)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Quebec (AG) v Canada (AG), 2015 SCC 14 is a Canadian constitutional law case concerning the federal government's ability to destroy information related to the Canadian long-gun registry pursuant to the federal criminal law power.

References

  1. ↑ The Canadian Federation of Agriculture v The Attorney-General of Quebec and others [1950] UKPC 31 , [1951] AC 179(16 October 1950)
  2. ↑ Supreme Court Amendment Act, S.C. 1949 (2nd. session), c. 37, s. 3
  3. ↑ Hogg 2003 , p. 463
  4. ↑ Hogg 2003 , p. 462
  5. ↑ Hogg 2003 , p. 462
  6. 1 2 3 "1948 CanLII 2 (SCC) / Reference re Validity of Section 5 (a) Dairy Industry Act". Canadian Legal Information Institute CanLII . Retrieved 11 August 2023. pages 1,49,50
  7. ↑ Hogg 2003 , p. 465
  8. ↑ Hogg 2003 , p. 465
  9. ↑ Hogg 2003 , p. 465
  10. ↑ The Attorney General of Canada v The Attorney General of Ontario and others ("Labour Conventions Reference") [1937] UKPC 6 , [1937] A.C. 326(28 January 1937), P.C. (on appeal from Canada)

Further reading

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.