Ontario (AG) v Canada Temperance Federation

Last updated
Ontario (AG) v Canada Temperance Federation
Royal Arms of the United Kingdom (Privy Council).svg
Court Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
Decided21 January 1946
Citation(s)[1946] UKPC 2, [1946] AC 193
Case history
Appealed from Court of Appeal of Ontario
Court membership
Judges sitting Viscount Simon, Lord Thankerton, Lord Roche, Lord Greene, Lord Goddard
Case opinions
Decision by Viscount Simon

Ontario (AG) v Canada Temperance Federation [1] 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.

Contents

Background

In June 1939, the Ontario government posed the following reference question to the Court of Appeal of Ontario:

Are Parts I, II and III of the Canada Temperance Act [2] constitutionally valid in whole or in part, and if in part, in what respect?

In presenting its case, Ontario argued:

  1. While the Act had been declared valid in Russell v. The Queen , Viscount Haldane had commented in the later case of Toronto Electric Commissioners v. Snider that Russell could be supported now only on the ground that it was dealing with a matter that was "a menace to the national life of Canada" at that time (an emergency).
  2. When the revised Act was enacted in 1927, having been originally enacted in 1878 and revised in 1886, there were no circumstances that enabled the Parliament of Canada to legislate anew.

Court of Appeal of Ontario

In September 1939, the majority of the Court of Appeal (Riddell, Fisher, McTague and Gillanders JJA) gave the following answer:

This Court is of opinion (Mr Justice Henderson dissenting) that Parts I, II and III of the Canada Temperance Act... are within the legislative competence of the Parliament of Canada.

Ontario appealed the ruling to the Privy Council.

Privy Council

The ruling was upheld by the Board. As to the arguments raised by Ontario,

  1. While the Board was not bound by its previous decisions, it noted that nowhere in the British North America Act is it mentioned that the peace, order and good government power can be invoked only in cases of emergency. It also noted that Snider did not explicitly state that Russell was wrongly decided, and Haldane's explanation was "too narrowly expressed." In addition, Russell had become a significant foundation for subsequent jurisprudence not only at the Board but also in the House of Lords.
  2. Once it was decided that the 1878 Act was valid, any subsequent Act replacing it through consolidating subsequent amending Acts must be equally valid.

Viscount Simon for the Council also suggested that the federal power relating to peace, order and good government could be invoked for matters of "national concern:"

In their Lordships' opinion, the true test must be found in the real subject matter of the legislation: if it is such that it goes beyond local or provincial concern or interests and must from its inherent nature be the concern of the Dominion as a whole (as, for example, in the Aeronautics case and the Radio case ), then it will fall within the competence of the Dominion Parliament as a matter affecting the peace, order and good government of Canada, though it may in another aspect touch on matters specially reserved to the provincial legislatures.

This became the foundation of the "national dimensions" test.

Impact

Many decisions to follow struggled to reconcile the case with that of Russell and seem to give contradictory interpretations of the nature of "peace, order and good government." Though not expressly stated by Simon, the decision effectively overturned Russell.[ citation needed ]

The "national concern" test was subsequently applied and elaborated on in Johannesson v. West St. Paul , Munro v. National Capital Commission , and R. v. Crown Zellerbach .

See also

Related Research Articles

An Order-in-Council is a type of legislation in many countries, especially the Commonwealth realms. In the United Kingdom this legislation is formally made in the name of the monarch by and with the advice and consent of the Privy Council (King-in-Council), but in other countries the terminology may vary. The term should not be confused with Orders of Council, which are made in the name of the Council without sovereign approval.

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.

In many Commonwealth jurisdictions, the phrase "peace, order, and good government" (POGG) is an expression used in law to express the legitimate objects of legislative powers conferred by statute. The phrase appears in many Imperial Acts of Parliament and Letters Patent, most notably the constitutions of Barbados, Canada, Australia and formerly New Zealand and South Africa.

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.

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.

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>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>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>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>Fort Frances Pulp and Paper v Manitoba Free Press</i> Canadian constitutional law 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.

<i>Toronto Electric Commissioners v Snider</i>

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">History of the Supreme Court of Canada</span>

The Supreme Court of Canada was founded in 1875 and has served as the final court of appeal in Canada since 1949. Its history may be divided into three general eras. From its inception in 1875 until 1949, the Court served as an intermediate appellate court subject to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Britain. Following 1949, the Court gained importance and legitimacy as the court of last resort in Canada, establishing a greater role for the Canadian judiciary. In 1982, the introduction of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms significantly changed the role of the Court in Canadian society, by providing the Court with greater powers of oversight over Parliament and through formal recognition of civil rights including aboriginal rights and equality rights.

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>Aeronautics Reference</i> Canadian constitutional law case in the JCPC

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.

<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.

<i>Nadan v R</i> 1926 Judicial Committee of the Privy Council ruling

Nadan v R 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.

<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.

References

  1. ↑ The Attorney-General of Ontario and others v The Canada Temperance Federation [1946] UKPC 2 , [1946] A.C. 193(21 January 1946), P.C. (on appeal from Ontario)
  2. ↑ R.S.C. 1927, c. 196
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.