R v Coote

Last updated

R v Coote
British North America Act, 1867.jpg
R v Coote was the first decision of the Judicial Committee interpreting the British North America Act, 1867
Court Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
Full case nameOur Sovereign Lady the Queen v Edward Coote
DecidedMarch 18, 1873
Citation(s)
  • (1873) LR 4 PC 599
  • [1873] UKPC 26
  • (1873) 9 Moo PC NS 426
  • 17 ER 587
Case history
Appealed from Quebec Court of Queen's Bench Maple Leaf (from roundel).svg
Court membership
Judges sitting
Case opinions
Provincial statute authorising inquiries by fire commissioners within provincial authority. Statements could be used in criminal prosecution.
Decision bySir Robert P. Collier
Keywords
Provincial inquiry power; Admissibility of depositions

R v Coote is a Canadian constitutional law decision in 1873 dealing with the powers of the provinces under the British North America Act, 1867 (now the Constitution Act, 1867 ). [1] The point in issue was whether Quebec had the constitutional authority to create a mandatory inquiry power for provincial fire commissioners.

Contents

The case was ultimately decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, at that time the court of last resort for Canada within the British Empire. [2] It was the first decision by the Judicial Committee analysing the division of powers under the Constitution of Canada.

The Judicial Committee held that the mandatory inquiry power was within provincial authority. The Judicial Committee also held that evidence given by an individual in response to a mandatory inquiry could later be used as evidence against that individual in a criminal prosecution for arson. [3] [4]

Facts

In 1871, there was a fire in the warehouse owned by the accused, Edward Coote, in Montreal, Quebec. Fire commissioners appointed under provincial law investigated the fire. In the course of their investigation, they twice interrogated Mr. Coote. Under the authority granted by provincial law, Mr. Coote was required to respond to the questions of the fire commissioners.

Subsequently, Mr. Coote was charged with four counts of arson with intent to defraud various insurance companies. He was tried before a single judge of the Quebec Court of Queen's Bench, sitting with a jury. The Crown successfully entered the two depositions in evidence. The jury convicted Mr. Coote. The trial judge reserved questions of law for the full Court to consider, including the validity of the provincial statute and the admissibility of the depositions in evidence against the accused. [5]

Decision of the Quebec Court of Queen's Bench

On 15 March 1872, the Quebec Court of Queen's Bench (Appeal Side) allowed the accused's appeal in a 3-2 decision. The majority held that while the provincial statute in question was within the constitutional authority of the Province, the depositions could not be admitted in the criminal trial. The Court quashed the guilty verdict. [6]

Decision of the Judicial Committee

Sir Robert Collier, QC, who gave the decision for the Judicial Committee Robert Collier Vanity Fair 19 February 1870.jpg
Sir Robert Collier, QC, who gave the decision for the Judicial Committee
Sir John Kerslake, QC, counsel for the Crown John Burgess Karslake, Vanity Fair, 1873-02-22.jpg
Sir John Kerslake, QC, counsel for the Crown

The Crown then sought to appeal from the Quebec Queen's Bench to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, sitting in London, which at this time was the highest court of appeal for the British Empire. (The Supreme Court of Canada had not yet been created.) [7] The Judicial Committee initially refused leave to appeal, but then granted a special application for leave. [8] On the hearing of the appeal, the accused did not appear, in person nor by counsel. The Committee therefore heard the case ex parte on 11 March 1873. The appellant Crown was represented by Sir John Karslake, Q.C., and H.M. Bompas. [8]

The Judicial Committee gave its decision on 18 March 1873, allowing the Crown appeal. Sir Robert P. Collier gave the decision for the Committee. He briefly disposed of the constitutional issue, referring to the lower court's conclusion that the law was within provincial jurisdiction and stating that the Committee agreed with that ruling. [9] As was the practice of the Judicial Committee at that time, there were no dissenting reasons from other members of the committee. [10]

The main focus of his decision was on the issue of the admissibility of the two depositions in the subsequent criminal trial. He concluded that "the depositions on Oath of a Witness legally taken are evidence against him, should he be subsequently tried on a criminal charge", except for questions which the witness had objected to answering. [11] He also concluded that the fire commissioners did not have any duty to warn Mr Coote of his right to have counsel present, since they had not arrested him at the time of the questioning. [12]

As a result, the Committee advised Her Majesty that the appeal should be allowed, that the conviction at trial be affirmed and that the Quebec Court of Queen's Bench pass sentence on Mr Coote. As was the practice at that time, there were no dissents. [12] [13]

Significance of the decision

R. v. Coote was the first case which considered (albeit very briefly) the constitutional division of powers under the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Supreme Court of Canada continues to cite the Coote case with approval, for the proposition that the provinces have the constitutional authority to enact legislation creating public inquiries with the power to compel testimony from witnesses. [14] [15]

This case is included in the three volume set of significant decisions of the Judicial Committee on the construction and interpretation of the British North America Act, 1867 (now the Constitution Act, 1867 ), prepared on the direction of the then Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Stuart Sinclair Garson, QC. He directed that the Department of Justice prepare the collection "for the convenience of the Bench and Bar in Canada", following the abolition of Canadian appeals to the Judicial Committee. [16] This case was included in the first volume of the set. [17]

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.

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.

<i>Maher v Town Council of Portland</i> Canadian constitutional law case – 1874

Maher v Town Council of Portland is a Canadian constitutional law court decision dealing with the constitutional guarantees for denominational schools set out in section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867. The issue was whether the Common Schools Act, enacted by the Province of New Brunswick in 1871, infringed the guarantee of denominational schools set out in section 93(1).

<i>Russell v The Queen</i> 1882 Canadian constitutional law case

Russell v The Queen is a Canadian constitutional law decision dealing with the power of the federal Parliament. The case was decided in 1882 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 The Queen</i> Canadian constitutional law case – 1883

Hodge v The Queen is a Canadian constitutional law decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in 1883, at that time the highest court of appeal in the British Empire, including Canada.

<i>Guibord case</i> Court case in Canada about freedom of belief

Brown v Les Curé et Marguilliers de l'Œuvre et Fabrique de Notre Dame de Montréal, better known as the Guibord case, was a decision in 1874 by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in an early Canadian legal dispute over the relationship between church and state.

<i>LUnion St Jacques de Montreal v Bélisle</i> Canadian constitutional law case - 1874

L'Union St. Jacques de Montreal v Bélisle is a Canadian constitutional law decision by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in 1874. The issue was whether a provincial statute which altered the contractual liabilities of a benevolent organization, reducing its financial obligations to two widows, was within the constitutional authority of the province of Quebec under the British North America Act, 1867.

<i>Dow v Black</i> Canadian constitutional law case – 1875

Dow v Black is a Canadian constitutional law decision. Decided in 1875, it was one of the first major cases examining in detail the division of powers between the federal Parliament and the provincial Legislatures, set out in the Constitution Act, 1867. The issue was whether a provincial statute which authorised the municipality of St. Stephen, New Brunswick to issue a debenture to fund a railway connecting to the United States was within provincial jurisdiction as a local tax matter, or whether it intruded on federal jurisdiction over inter-provincial and international railways.

<i>Cushing v Dupuy</i> Canadian insolvency law case in the JCPC

Cushing v Dupuy is a Canadian constitutional law case decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in 1880, at that time the highest court of appeal for the British Empire, including Canada. The case was on appeal from the courts of Quebec, and dealt with the following issues:

Section 92(14) of the Constitution Act, 1867, also known as the administration of justice power, grants the provincial legislatures of Canada the authority to legislate on:

14. The Administration of Justice in the Province, including the Constitution, Maintenance, and Organization of Provincial Courts, both of Civil and of Criminal Jurisdiction, and including Procedure in Civil Matters in those Courts.

<i>Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v Notre Dame de Bonsecours</i> Canadian constitutional law case - JCPC

Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v Notre Dame de Bonsecours is a Canadian constitutional law decision, dealing with the powers of the provinces under the Constitution Act, 1867. The point in issue was whether the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, a federally regulated railway, was required to comply with an order issued by a municipality under provincial law. The municipal order required the CPR Co. to clean a ditch beside its rail line, which had become blocked and flooded neighbouring land, under penalty of $20 per day until the ditch was cleared.

<i>Attorney General for Quebec v Queen Insurance Company</i> Canadian constitutional law case – 1878

Attorney General for Quebec v Queen Insurance Company is a Canadian constitutional law decision in 1878, dealing with the taxation and licensing powers of the provinces under the federal-provincial division of powers.

<i>Valin v Langlois</i> Canadian constitutional law decision – 1879

Valin v Langlois is a Canadian constitutional law decision from the Supreme Court of Canada, concerning the jurisdiction of the federal Parliament over federal elections, as well as the constitutional jurisdiction of the provincial superior courts. The Court held that the Parliament of Canada has sole jurisdiction to enact laws regulating federal elections, including provisions for controverted elections. The Court also held that the provincial superior courts have general jurisdiction over questions of federal and provincial law, and that Parliament could give provincial courts jurisdiction to apply federal laws.

<i>Bourgoin v La Compagnie du Chemin de Fer de Montréal, Ottawa & Occidental, and Ross</i> Canadian constitutional law case – 1880

Bourgoin v La Compagnie du Chemin de Fer de Montréal, Ottawa & Occidental, and Ross is a Canadian constitutional law case decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, at that time the highest court of appeal for the British Empire. Although the case initially dealt with the power of arbitrators under the federal Railway Act, the underlying constitutional issue was the relationship between federal and provincial regulation of a railway in Quebec. The Judicial Committee ruled that the province could not unilaterally take over ownership and regulation of a federally regulated railway.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Section 101 of the Constitution Act, 1867</span> Provision of the Constitution of Canada

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.

<i>Dobie v Temporalities Board</i> Canadian constitutional law case – 1881

Dobie v Temporalities Board is a Canadian constitutional law case. It was decided in 1881 by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, at that time the highest court in the British Empire, including Canada. The case concerned the power of the provinces and the federal Parliament to deal with legal rights created by statutes enacted prior to Confederation in 1867.

References

  1. ↑ Constitution Act, 1867, 30 & 31 Victoria, c. 3. (U.K.).
  2. ↑ James G. Snell and Frederick Vaughan, The Supreme Court of Canada: History of the Institution (Toronto: Osgoode Society, 1985), p. 42.
  3. ↑ The Queen v Edward Coote [1873] UKPC 26 , (1873) LR 4 PC 599(18 March 1873)(on appeal from Quebec); reprinted, Richard A. Olmstead, Canadian Constitutional Decisions of the Judicial Committee (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1954), vol 1, p. 1–10.
  4. ↑ Reg v Coote(1873)9 Moo PC NS 426, 17 ER 587 (6 February 1873)
  5. ↑ R v Coote, pp. 604–605 (L.R.), pp. 1–2 (UKPC).
  6. ↑ R v Coote, p. 601 (L.R.).
  7. ↑ James G. Snell and Frederick Vaughan, The Supreme Court of Canada: History of the Institution (Toronto: Osgoode Society, 1985), pp. 4–9, 42.
  8. 1 2 R v Coote, p. 602 (L.R.).
  9. ↑ R v Coote, p. 605 (L.R.), p. 2 (UKPC).
  10. ↑ Peter Hogg and Wade Wright, Constitutional Law of Canada, 5th ed., supplemented (Toronto: Thomson Reuters, looseleaf current to 2023), para. 8:2.
  11. ↑ R v Coote, p. 607 (L.R.), p. 4 (UKPC).
  12. 1 2 R v Coote, p. 608 (L.R.), p. 5 (UKPC).
  13. ↑ Peter Hogg and Wade Wright, Constitutional Law of Canada, 5th ed., supplemented (Toronto: Thomson Reuters, looseleaf, current to 2023), para. 8:2.
  14. ↑ Attorney General of Quebec and Keable v Attorney General of Canada et al, 1978 CanLII 23 at p. 241, [1979] 1 SCR 218(31 October 1978)
  15. ↑ Starr v Houlden, 1990 CanLII 112 , [1990] 1 SCR 1366(5 April 1990)
  16. ↑ Olmsted, Richard A., ed. (1954). Decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council relating to the British North America Act, 1867 and the Canadian Constitution, 1867–1954. Vol. 1. Ottawa: Queen's Printer.
  17. ↑ Olmstead, Decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, Vol. 1, p. 1.
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.