Proprietary Articles Trade Association v Canada (AG)

Proprietary Articles Trade Association v Canada (AG)
Proprietary Articles Trade Association v Canada (AG)
Court	Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
Full case name	The Proprietary Articles Trade Association and others v The Attorney-General of Canada and others
Decided	January 29, 1931
Citation(s)	[1931] UKPC 11 (BAILII), [1931] AC 310, [1931] 2 DLR 1, [1931] 1 WWR 552, 55 CCC 241
Case history
Prior action(s)	Reference re Validity of the Combines Investigation Act and of s. 498 of the Criminal Code, 1929 CanLII 90, [1929] SCR 409(30 April 1929)
Appealed from	Supreme Court of Canada
Court membership
Judges sitting	Lord Blanesburgh, Lord Merrivale, Lord Atkin, Lord Russell of Killowen, Lord Macmillan
Case opinions
Decision by	Lord Atkin

Last updated April 11, 2023

Proprietary Articles Trade Association v Canada (AG),^[1] is a Canadian constitutional decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on the Constitution's criminal law power under section 91(27).

Background

Following the Board of Commerce case (in which the Privy Council determined that two Acts were ultra vires federal jurisdiction), the Parliament of Canada passed the Combines Investigation Act, 1923,^[2] which provided for:

the investigation of alleged combines,
creating and punishing the offence of assisting in the formation or operation of a combine,
reduction or abolition of customs duties which facilitate disadvantage to the public from an existing combine, and
revocation of patents in certain cases.

The Criminal Code was also amended by inserting s. 498, which created a corresponding offence of combining to limit facilities, restrain commerce, or lessen manufacture or competition. These measures essentially repeated the previous legislation, without employing the regulatory framework that had previously been found to be unconstitutional.

The Proprietary Articles Trade Association was formed in Canada in 1925, with objects similar to organizations of the same name formed in several other Commonwealth countries.^[3] It was investigated under the Act, and found to be a combine within its scope.

The following reference questions were posed to the Supreme Court of Canada:

Is the Combines Investigation Act, R.S.C., 1927, chapter 26, ultra vires the Parliament of Canada, either in whole or in part, and, if so, in what particular or particulars or to what extent?
Is section 498 of the Criminal Codeultra vires the Parliament of Canada, and, if so, in what particular or particulars or to what extent?

At the Supreme Court of Canada

The Supreme Court unanimously held that both measures were intra vires federal jurisdiction, by virtue of the federal criminal law power. As to Lord Haldane's restrictive interpretation that had been previously enunciated in the Board of Commerce case , Newcombe J said:

I am convinced that he never intended to suggest that Parliament might not competently find a public wrong lurking or tolerated under the head of civil rights in a province which it is necessary or expedient, according to its will and discretion, or, using Sir Matthew Hale’s expression, “by the prudence of law-givers,” to suppress, in the exercise of its authority over the criminal law.^[4]

At the Privy Council

The Board upheld the Supreme Court ruling. In his judgment, Lord Atkin rejected Lord Haldane's previous interpretation of criminal law in Canada, as it froze the scope of criminal law to what was considered criminal at the time of Confederation in 1867. He endorsed Newcombe J's view of the matter. Instead, Atkin offered a new definition:

Criminal law connotes only the quality of such acts or omissions as are prohibited under appropriate penal provisions by authority of the state. The criminal quality of an act cannot be discerned by intuition; nor can it be discovered by reference to any standard but one: Is the act prohibited with penal consequences?

This statement suggested two requirements for criminal law. It must consist of a prohibition and must impose a prison sentence.

While not having to decide on the applicability of the trade and commerce power in this, the Board expressed a desire to clarify an aspect of their previous ruling in Board of Commerce . In the current case, it had been argued that Board of Commerce held that the trade and commerce power could be used only in furtherance of a general power that the Parliament of Canada had independently of it. It was emphasized that that was not the correct interpretation, and that the power existed as a separate grant of authority.

Aftermath

Atkin's definition of what criminal law is has had a lasting impact throughout Commonwealth jurisprudence.^[5] In Canadian constitutional law, it was subsequently refined in 1949 in the Margarine Reference case to more properly reflect the Canadian division of powers.

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.

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.

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.

Russell v R is a major Privy Council decision regarding the interpretation of the Constitution Act, 1867, and was one of the first cases explaining the nature of the peace, order and good government power in Canadian federalism. It expanded upon the jurisprudence that was previously discussed in Citizen's Insurance Co. v. Parsons.

Ontario (AG) v Canada (AG), also known as the Local Prohibition Case, was a famous Canadian constitutional decision by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It was one of the first cases to enunciate core principles of the federal peace, order and good government power.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Reference Re Alberta Statutes, also known as the Alberta Press case and the Alberta Press Act Reference, is a landmark reference of the Supreme Court of Canada where several provincial laws, including one restricting the press, were struck down and the existence of an implied bill of rights protecting civil liberties such as a free press was first proposed.

Reference Re Persons of Japanese Race is a famous decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which upheld a Supreme Court of Canada ruling declaring a government order to deport Canadian citizens of Japanese descent to be valid.

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.

<i>Combines Investigation Act</i> Canadian act of Parliament

The Combines Investigation Act, 1923, was a Canadian Act of Parliament that regulated certain anti-competitive corporate business practices. It prohibited monopolies, misleading advertising, bid-rigging, price fixing, and other means of limiting competition.

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.

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.

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.

Reference Re Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the constitutionality of the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act as part of the bankruptcy and insolvency jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada.

Canada (AG) v Ontario (AG)[1937] UKPC 6, [1937] A.C. 326, also known as the Labour Conventions Reference, is a landmark decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council concerning the distinct nature of federal and provincial jurisdiction in Canadian federalism.

References

↑ The Proprietary Articles Trade Association and others v The Attorney-General of Canada and others [1931] UKPC 11 , [1931] AC 310(29 January 1931), P.C. (on appeal from Canada)
↑ 13 & 14 George V, c. 9
↑ As noted in "The Proprietary Articles Trade Association". New Zealand Board of Trade. 1927., at p. iv
↑ SCC Reference, at p. 423
↑ Gary Slapper (2007). "The changing contours of the criminal law" (PDF). Journal of Criminal Law. 71 (2): 95–98. doi:10.1350/jcla.2007.71.2.95 . Retrieved 31 December 2012.