McLaren v Caldwell

Last updated
McLaren v Caldwell
Timber slide 1901.jpg
The Duke and Duchess of York running the Chaudière timber slide on a timber crib, Ottawa, Ontario, 1901
Court Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
Full case nameCaldwell and another v McLaren
Decided7 April 1884
Citation(s)[1884] UKPC 21, (1884) 9 AC 392
Case history
Prior action(s)McLaren v. Caldwell, 1882 CanLII 3, 8 SCR 435(28 November 1882), reversing McLaren v. Caldwell et al., 6Ont. App. Rep.456 (8 July 1881). and restoring a decree of the Court of Chancery of Ontario
Appealed from Supreme Court of Canada
Case opinions
Since 1849, the law in what is now Ontario has made public waterways of all streams, whether they are naturally or artificially floatable. Judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada should be reversed, and that of the Ontario Court of Appeal restored.
Court membership
Judges sitting
Case opinions
Decision byLord Blackburn
Keywords
free use of waterways, provincial jurisdiction

McLaren v Caldwell [1] was a landmark decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council that upheld provincial jurisdiction in matters of a local or private nature, as well as over property and civil rights. It has been described as "a decision in a non-constitutional legal context that had indirect non-legal, but profound, constitutional consequences." [2]

Contents

Background

Peter McLaren, one of the parties in the case. PeterMcLarenSenator.jpg
Peter McLaren, one of the parties in the case.

The case arose from a controversy that came to be known as the "Lumbermen's Feud". [3] Peter McLaren owned a lumber mill and had added timber slides on the Mississippi river and its northern tributaries that flowed through land that he owned in Lanark County, Ontario, in order to provide for transporting his own logs. Boyd Caldwell [4] owned a rival mill, and was attempting to drive 18,000 logs through those slides. McLaren sued Caldwell's firm, B. Caldwell & Son, to restrain them from passing or floating timber and saw logs through his slides. [5]

Caldwell claimed that McLaren was unable to prevent the use of the river for the passage of his logs because of the statutes in force in Ontario. [5] McLaren, however, asserted that he had the right to do so under the common law.

In support of Caldwell, Ontario Premier Oliver Mowat arranged the passage of the Rivers and Streams Act, 1881 [6] which required the unobstructed passage of logs, timber, rafts, etc. down all waterways in the province, whether improved or not, subject to the payment of any reasonable tolls. This Act was disallowed by the federal government under John A. Macdonald on the grounds that it infringed upon private property rights. [7] This conflict added fuel to the ongoing quarrel between the federal and provincial governments; the bill was re-enacted and disallowed again in 1882 and 1883. [8]

In an 1882 debate in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, Mowat maintained that the Rivers and Streams Bill fell wholly within provincial jurisdiction, [9] and asserted that federal disallowance could only take place:

  1. when the Act is altogether illegal or unconstitutional,
  2. when illegal or unconstitutional in part,
  3. in cases of concurrent jurisdiction as clashing with the legislation of the General Parliament
  4. when it affects the interests of the Dominion Parliament. [9]

The courts below

On initial application to the Court of Chancery of Ontario, Vice-Chancellor Proudfoot [10] granted the interlocutory injunction that was requested. That injunction was overturned on appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal. [11]

The Court of Chancery of Ontario, in Vice-Chancellor Proudfoot's subsequent decision on 16 December 1880, [12] held that Caldwell could not drive his logs as the streams were found not to have been navigable or floatable for saw logs or other timber, rafts, and crafts when in a state of nature, and issued the appropriate injunction.

Appeal was allowed by the Ontario Court of Appeal, where Chief Justice Spragge held that Ontario law [13] made all streams, whether naturally or artificially floatable, public waterways. [14]

On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Court of Appeal's decision was reversed on the grounds that:

  • the streams in question were not floatable without the aid of artificial improvements,
  • the appellant had at common law the exclusive right to use his property as he pleased, and to prevent respondents from using as a highway the stream in question where it flowed through appellant’s private property,
  • as held in the 1863 decision in Boale v. Dickson, [15] the Ontario statute in question extends only to such streams as would, in their natural state, without improvements, during freshets, permit saw logs, timber, etc., to be floated down them.

Appeal to the Privy Council

Caricature of Lord Blackburn, author of the JCPC ruling. Colin Blackburn, Vanity Fair, 1881-11-19.jpg
Caricature of Lord Blackburn, author of the JCPC ruling.

The Privy Council held in favour of Caldwell, ruling that the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal (stating that the Upper Canada Act had been misconstrued as to its effect in Boale v. Dickson) was correct. After reviewing Upper Canada's laws in the matter that had been enacted as early as 1828, [16] it further declared:

And their Lordships agree with the Judges of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in thinking that there is nothing to justify any Court in construing the words "all streams" as meaning such streams only as are at all places floatable. They do not think that every little rill, not capable of floating even a bullrush, is a stream within the meaning of the Act. But when once it is shown that there is a sufficient body of water above and below the spot where the natural impediment exists, though that natural impediment renders the stream at that spot practically unfloatable, it does not make it cease to be a part of the stream in the ordinary sense of the words.

Aftermath

As a result of the Privy Council's ruling, the Legislative Assembly of Ontario passed the Rivers and Streams Act, 1884, [17] which the federal government decided not to disallow. [18] In order to assert its own jurisdiction, the Parliament of Canada subsequently passed the Navigable Waters Protection Act . Subsequent legislation on the issue had mixed results. [19]

McLaren v Caldwell established the principle in Canadian law that waterways are open to all, and that while private interests can charge a reasonable amount for the use of any improvements they have made, they cannot refuse passage to anyone. The victory was essentially a political one - Mowat's refusal to back down in the face of Macdonald’s intransigence made it more difficult for the federal government to disallow legislation that clearly fell under provincial jurisdiction, and led Macdonald increasingly to send matters to the courts. Essentially, disallowance was considered to be inconsistent with the rule of law, as well as being incompatible with the political conception of Canadian federalism. [20]

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, in turn, increasingly ruled in favour of the provinces, with a broad interpretation of what constituted local matters. In that regard, it has been estimated that, in its history, the Judicial Committee overturned about half of all appeals from the Supreme Court of Canada, while only overturning about a quarter of all appeals from other Canadian courts. [21]

Further reading

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judicial Committee of the Privy Council</span> Judicial body in the United Kingdom

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) is the highest court of appeal for the Crown Dependencies, the British Overseas Territories, some Commonwealth countries and a few institutions in the United Kingdom. Established on 14 August 1833 to hear appeals formerly heard by the King-in-Council, the Privy Council formerly acted as the court of last resort for the entire British Empire, other than for the United Kingdom itself.

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

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Oliver Mowat</span> Canadian lawyer and politician (1820–1903)

Sir Oliver Mowat was a Canadian lawyer, politician, and Ontario Liberal Party leader. He served for nearly 24 years as the third premier of Ontario. He was the eighth lieutenant governor of Ontario and one of the Fathers of Confederation. He is best known for defending successfully the constitutional rights of the provinces in the face of the centralizing tendency of the national government as represented by his longtime Conservative adversary, John A. Macdonald. This longevity and power was due to his maneuvering to build a political base around Liberals, Catholics, trade unions, and anti-French-Canadian sentiment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Arthur Sturgis Hardy</span> Canadian lawyer and politician

Arthur Sturgis Hardy, was a Canadian lawyer and Liberal politician who served as the fourth premier of Ontario from 1896 to 1899.

<i>Constitution Act, 1867</i> Primary constitutional document of Canada

The Constitution Act, 1867, originally enacted as the British North America Act, 1867, is a major part of the Constitution of Canada. The act created a federal dominion and defines much of the operation of the Government of Canada, including its federal structure, the House of Commons, the Senate, the justice system, and the taxation system. In 1982, with the patriation of the Constitution, the British North America Acts which were originally enacted by the British Parliament, including this Act, were renamed. Although, the acts are still known by their original names in records of the United Kingdom. Amendments were also made at this time: section 92A was added, giving provinces greater control over non-renewable natural resources.

The Federal Court of Canada, which succeeded the Exchequer Court of Canada in 1971, was a national court of Canada that had limited jurisdiction to hear certain types of disputes arising under the federal government's legislative jurisdiction. Originally composed of two divisions, the Appellate Division and the Trial Division, in 2003 the Court was split into two separate Courts, the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal. The jurisdiction and powers of the two courts remained largely unchanged from the predecessor divisions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Politics of Ontario</span> Westminster system of government

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.

<i>St Catharines Milling and Lumber Co v R</i>

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. This 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.

<i>Hodge v R</i>

Hodge v R is a famous Privy Council decision on interpreting the Constitution of Canada. This was the first time the doctrine of double aspect was applied to division of powers analysis.

<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>Ontario (AG) v Canada Temperance Federation</i>

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.

<i>Canada Temperance Act</i>

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 Eastern Terminal Elevator Co</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">William Durie Lyon</span> Canadian politician

William Durie Lyon was a merchant and political figure in Ontario, Canada.

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

Peter McLaren was a Canadian politician and Senator from Ontario. McLaren was the Plaintiff in McLaren v Caldwell, that resulted in the landmark decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council that upheld provincial jurisdiction in matters of a local or private nature, as well as over property and civil rights.

Loring, Port Loring and District is a local services board in the Canadian province of Ontario, located in Parry Sound District, and by extension, the Almaguin Highlands region.

<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.

<i>Canadian Navigable Waters Act</i>

The Canadian Navigable Waters Act is one of the oldest regulatory statutes enacted by the Parliament of Canada. It requires approval for any works that may affect navigation on navigable waters in Canada.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John Godfrey Spragge</span> Canadian lawyer and judge

John Godfrey Spragge was a Canadian lawyer and judge.

Disallowance and reservation are historical constitutional powers in Canada that act as a mechanism to delay or overrule legislation passed by Parliament or a provincial legislature. In contemporary Canadian history, disallowance is an authority granted to the governor general in council to invalidate an enactment passed by a provincial legislature. Reservation is an authority granted to the lieutenant governor to withhold royal assent from a bill which has been passed by a provincial legislature. The bill is then "reserved" for consideration by the federal cabinet.

References

  1. ↑ Caldwell and another v McLaren [1884] UKPC 21 , (1884) 9 AC 392(7 April 1884), P.C. (on appeal from Canada)
  2. ↑ Lamot 1998, p. 74.
  3. ↑ "Mississippi River Festival: The loggers' feud at High Falls". Frontenac News. 6 August 2009. Archived from the original on 2009-08-14. Retrieved 11 August 2012.
  4. ↑ Turner, Larry (1994). "Caldwell, William Clyde". In Cook, Ramsay; Hamelin, Jean (eds.). Dictionary of Canadian Biography . Vol. XIII (1901–1910) (online ed.). University of Toronto Press.
  5. 1 2 Romney 1999, p. 112.
  6. ↑ An Act for Protecting the Public Interest in Rivers, Streams and Creeks , S.O. 1881, c. 11
  7. ↑ Morrison 1982.
  8. ↑ Creighton, Donald (1998). John A. MacDonald: The Young Politician, the Old Chieftain. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press. pp. 323–324. ISBN   0-8020-7164-3 . Retrieved 2012-08-10.
  9. 1 2 Lamot 1998, p. 86.
  10. ↑ Baker, G. Blaine (1994). "Proudfoot, William". In Cook, Ramsay; Hamelin, Jean (eds.). Dictionary of Canadian Biography . Vol. XIII (1901–1910) (online ed.). University of Toronto Press.
  11. ↑ McLaren v. Caldwell, 1880 CanLII 12 , 5 Ont. App. Rep. 363(2 June 1880), Court of Appeal (Ontario,Canada)
  12. ↑ as quoted in the Privy Council decision
  13. ↑ An Act respecting Mills and Mill-Dams , C.S.U.C. 1859, c. 48 (originally enacted as An Act to amend an Act passed in the Parliament of Upper Canada in the ninth year of the Reign of His late Majesty King George the Fourth, intituled, An Act to provide for the construction of Aprons to Mill Dams over certain Streams in this Province, and to make further provision in respect thereof , S.Prov.C. 1849, c. 87 ), re-enacted as An Act respecting Rivers and Streams , R.S.O. 1877, c. 115
  14. ↑ Morrison, Brian H. (1982). "Spragge, John Godfrey". In Halpenny, Francess G (ed.). Dictionary of Canadian Biography . Vol. XI (1881–1890) (online ed.). University of Toronto Press.
  15. ↑ Boale v. Dickson, 13U.C.C.P.337 (1863).
  16. ↑ An Act to provide for the construction of aprons to mill dams over certain streams in this province , S.U.C. 1828, c. 4
  17. ↑ An Act for protecting the Public interest in Rivers, Streams and Creeks , S.O. 1884, c. 17
  18. ↑ "Rivers and Streams Act of 1884". Ontario Heritage Trust . Retrieved 2012-08-10.
  19. ↑ Neil Reynolds (2009-06-10). "How logging gave industry a licence to pollute". The Globe and Mail . Retrieved 2012-08-11.
  20. ↑ Lamot 1998, p. 125.
  21. ↑ Lamot 1998, p. 134.
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.