Nadan v R | |
---|---|
Court | Judicial Committee of the Privy Council |
Full case name | Frank Nadan v The King |
Decided | 25 February 1926 |
Citation | [1926] UKPC 13, [1926] AC 482 |
Case history | |
Appealed from | Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta |
Court membership | |
Judges sitting | The Lord Chancellor, Lord Dunedin, Lord Shaw, Lord Phillimore, Lord Blanesburgh |
Case opinions | |
Decision by | The Lord Chancellor |
Keywords | |
Royal prerogative, jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council |
Nadan v R [1] 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.
In 1875, the Parliament of Canada established the Supreme Court of Canada as a general court of appeal. This did not, however, bar rulings from the various provincial courts of appeal from being appealed directly to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. [2] In 1888, Parliament enacted a provision to abolish appeals in criminal cases to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, [3] which was later incorporated as s 1025 of the Criminal Code :
1025. Notwithstanding any Royal Prerogative, or anything contained within the Interpretation Act or in the Supreme Court Act, no appeal shall be brought in any criminal case from any judgment or order of any Court in Canada to any court of appeal or authority by which in the United Kingdom appeals or petitions to His Majesty in Council may be heard.
In 1924, Frank Nadan, working for his employer (a British Columbia common carrier), was transporting intoxicating liquor from Alberta to Montana, which was subject to a prohibition on alcohol. Near Coleman, Alberta, he was arrested by the Alberta Provincial Police for:
He was convicted on both counts, and appealed these convictions to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta. Those appeals were dismissed, but the court gave leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
The respondent presented a petition to the Council, asking that the appeals be quashed because they were barred under s. 1025. Leave was granted for the attorneys-general of Alberta and Canada to intervene.
The appeals were dismissed, but the Privy Council took the occasion to discuss the competence of the Canadian Parliament to abolish criminal appeals to them.
On the final question as to whether to recommend special leave to appeal, the Board noted that it was settled practice that, in criminal cases, it would intervene only where substantial and grave injustice had been done by:
The present cases did not fall within this exceptional category. Accordingly, dismissal was recommended for these appeals.
After the passage of the Statute of Westminster 1931 , the Parliament of Canada abolished criminal appeals to the Privy Council again in 1933, [8] and that measure was upheld by the Privy Council in British Coal Corporation v. the King . [9] It was followed by the abolition of civil appeals in 1949, [10] after the Privy Council affirmed that Parliament also had the right to do so. [11]
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.
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.
The court system of Canada is made up of many courts differing in levels of legal superiority and separated by jurisdiction. In the courts, the judiciary interpret and apply the law of Canada. Some of the courts are federal in nature, while others are provincial or territorial.
In Canadian law, a reference question or reference case is a submission by the federal or a provincial government to the courts asking for an advisory opinion on a major legal issue. Typically the question concerns the constitutionality of legislation.
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.
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 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.
The Courts of Justice Act 1924 was an Act of the Oireachtas that established a new system of courts for the Irish Free State. Among the new courts was the Supreme Court of the Irish Free State, and the first Chief Justice of the Irish Free State was also appointed under the Act.
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 Constitution Act 1933 was an Act of the Oireachtas of the Irish Free State amending the Constitution of the Irish Free State which had been adopted in 1922. It abolished the right of appeal from the Supreme Court of the Irish Free State to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It was part of a series of constitutional changes the Fianna Fáil government led by Éamon de Valera had initiated after coming to office in 1932 which reduced the connections between the Irish Free State and the United Kingdom.
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.
Jacqueline D. Krikorian, "British Imperial Politics and Judicial Independence: The Judicial Committee's Decision in the Canadian Case Nadan v. The King," Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue canadienne de science politique Vol. 33, No. 2 (Jun., 2000), pp. 291-332.