Royal Bank of Canada v R

Last updated
Royal Bank of Canada v R
Canadian Pacific Railroad 2317.jpg
Court Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
Full case nameThe Royal Bank of Canada and others v The King and another
Decided31 January 1913
Citation(s)[1913] UKPC 1a, [1913] A.C. 283 (P.C.)
Case history
Appealed from Supreme Court of Alberta Flag of Alberta.svg
Court membership
Judges sitting The Lord Chancellor, Lord Macnaghten, Lord Atkinson, Lord Moulton
Case opinions
Decision by The Lord Chancellor
Keywords
property and civil rights, extraterritoriality

Royal Bank of Canada v R, [1] is a notable Canadian constitutional decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council where the Council limited the province's ability to create laws in relation to extraprovincial contractual rights.

Contents

Background

In 1909, the Alberta and Great Waterways Railway Company was incorporated by an Act of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta. Another Act was passed in the same year to authorize the Province to guarantee the principal and interest of bonds that were to be issued by the Company. The proceeds of the bonds raised in England were credited to a Railway Special Account set up by the province and kept in a branch of the Royal Bank of Canada in Edmonton, and the Company proceeded to enter into a contract with the Canada West Construction Company.

In 1910, public uneasiness was raised concerning the arrangements that had been entered into by the Province, and a royal commission of inquiry was set up to look into the matter. [2] While the commission was deliberating, a new government was formed that proceeded to pass two new Actsthe first authorizing the transfer of the balance in the Railway Special Account into the General Revenue Fund of the Province on the basis that the company had defaulted on the construction of the railway, and the second providing that anyone suffering loss or damage under the first Act must file a claim with the Government that would be reported to the Legislature. When the Provincial Treasurer arranged to issue a cheque to draw the balance out of the special account, the Royal Bank of Canada refused to honour it. The Province then proceeded to sue the Bank for the funds, and the two Companies were joined in the action as defendants.

The courts below

At first instance, the District Court of Northern Alberta, Stuart J. ruled that the proceeds of the bond issue were within the Province, and therefore the matter was one of a local nature in it. Accordingly, the Act was validly passed and judgment was issued in favour of the Province.

The judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court of Alberta in a unanimous decision.

Appeal to the Privy Council

Appeal was allowed by the Privy Council, which noted that the law in this field provided that the lenders in London were entitled to claim from the Bank at its head office in Montreal the money which they had advanced for a purpose that had ceased to exist. [3] Therefore, this was a civil right that existed outside the Province of Alberta, and the Legislature of Alberta could not legislate validly against it.

Aftermath

The absolute rule in Royal Bank of Canada v R has since been relaxed somewhat by Re Upper Churchill Water Rights Reversion Act [4] to allow for incidental effects, [5] where, as noted by McIntyre J.: [6]

Where the pith and substance of the provincial enactment is in relation to matters which fall within the field of provincial legislative competence, incidental or consequential effects on extra-provincial rights will not render the enactment ultra vires. Where, however, the pith and substance of the provincial enactment is the derogation from or elimination of extra-provincial rights then, even if it is cloaked in the proper constitutional form, it will be ultra vires. A colourable attempt to preserve the appearance of constitutionality in order to conceal an unconstitutional objective will not save the legislation.

See also

Related Research Articles

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

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Arthur Sifton</span> Premier of Alberta from 1910 to 1917

Arthur Lewis Watkins Sifton was a Canadian lawyer, judge and politician who served as the second premier of Alberta from 1910 until 1917. He became a minister in the federal cabinet of Canada thereafter. Born in Canada West, he grew up there and in Winnipeg, where he became a lawyer. He subsequently practised law with his brother Clifford Sifton in Brandon, where he was also active in municipal politics. He moved west to Prince Albert in 1885 and to Calgary in 1889. There, he was elected to the 4th and 5th North-West Legislative Assemblies; he served as a minister in the government of premier Frederick Haultain. In 1903, the federal government, at the instigation of his brother, made Sifton the Chief Justice of the Northwest Territories. After Alberta was created out of a portion of the Northwest Territories in 1905, Sifton became the first Chief Justice of Alberta in 1907 and served until 1910.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Northern Alberta Railways</span> Railway in Alberta and British Columbia, Canada

Northern Alberta Railways was a Canadian railway which served northern Alberta and northeastern British Columbia. Jointly owned by both Canadian National Railway and Canadian Pacific Railway, NAR existed as a separate company from 1929 until 1981.

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.

<i>Reference Re Upper Churchill Water Rights Reversion Act (Nfld)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Reference Re Upper Churchill Water Rights Reversion Act (Nfld) [1984] 1 S.C.R. 297 is a famous constitutional reference question put to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court found that legislation passed by the government of Newfoundland to take back water rights contracted out to the province of Quebec was unconstitutional. The decision had a huge impact on both provinces, as the Churchill Falls generating station is one of the biggest producers of hydro-electric power in the region and the agreement guarantees Quebec will receive a majority of the revenue from the Falls until 2034.

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>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>Reference Re Alberta Statutes</i> 1938 Canadian constitutional law case

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.

<i>Carnation Co v Quebec (Agricultural Marketing Board)</i> Constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada

Carnation Co v Quebec (Agricultural Marketing Board) [1968] S.C.R. 238 is a leading constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the federal authority over trade and commerce under section 91(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867. The Court held that incidental overlap of provincial laws into federal trade and commerce matters does not necessarily invalidate the law.

In Canadian Constitutional law, interjurisdictional immunity is the legal doctrine that determines which legislation arising from one level of jurisdiction may be applicable to matters covered at another level. Interjurisdictional immunity is an exception to the pith and substance doctrine, as it stipulates that there is a core to each federal subject matter that cannot be reached by provincial laws. While a provincial law that imposes a tax on banks may be ruled intra vires, as it is not within the protected core of banking, a provincial law that limits the rights of creditors to enforce their debts would strike at such a core and be ruled inapplicable.

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

Charles Allan Stuart was a Canadian politician and jurist in the province of Alberta. Born and educated in Ontario, he came west in 1897 and set up a law practice in Calgary. After a failed election bid to the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories, he was elected to the Calgary City Council and then to the Legislative Assembly of Alberta. He resigned before the end of his term in the latter body to accept a judgeship on the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories. He was later appointed to the new Supreme Court of Alberta. He was also the first Chancellor of the University of Alberta, serving in that capacity from 1908 until his death in 1926.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John Robert Boyle</span> Canadian politician and judge (1871–1936)

John Robert Boyle, was a Canadian politician and jurist who served as a Member of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, a cabinet minister in the Government of Alberta, and a judge on the Supreme Court of Alberta. Born in Ontario, he came west and eventually settled in Edmonton, where he practiced law. After a brief stint on Edmonton's first city council, he was elected in Alberta's inaugural provincial election as a Liberal. During the Alberta and Great Waterways Railway scandal, he was a leader of the Liberal insurgency that forced Premier Alexander Cameron Rutherford from office.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alberta and Great Waterways Railway scandal</span> 1910 political scandal in Alberta, Canada

The Alberta and Great Waterways Railway Scandal was a political scandal in Alberta, Canada in 1910, which forced the resignation of Liberal premier Alexander Cameron Rutherford. Rutherford and his government were accused of giving loan guarantees to private interests for the construction of the Alberta and Great Waterways (A&GW) Railway that substantially exceeded the cost of construction, and which paid interest considerably above the market rate. They were also accused of exercising insufficient oversight over the railway's operations.

<i>Canadian Western Bank v Alberta</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Canadian Western Bank v Alberta [2007] 2 S.C.R. 3 is a landmark decision in Canadian constitutional law by the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) relating to the division of powers between Federal and Provincial legislative bodies.

<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>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.

<i>Reference Re Companies Creditors Arrangement Act</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

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.

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.

<i>Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act</i> 2022 Canadian provincial legislation

The Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act, commonly known as the Alberta Sovereignty Act, is an act introduced on November 29, 2022, the first day of the fall sitting of the 4th Session of the 30th Alberta Legislature by the Premier of Alberta, Danielle Smith, and passed on December 8, 2022. The act seeks to protect Alberta from federal laws and policies that the Alberta legislature deems to be unconstitutional or harmful to Albertans or the province's economic prosperity, in areas such as natural resources, gun control, COVID-19 public health, education, and agriculture.

References

  1. The Royal Bank of Canada and others v The King and another [1913] UKPC 1a , [1913] A.C. 212(31 January 1913), P.C. (on appeal from Alberta)
  2. Scott, David Lindsay; Harvey, Horace.; Beck, N. D. (1910). Report of the Royal Commission on the Alberta and Great Waterways Railway Company: (The Beck Report). Edmonton: Government of Alberta. OL   21827034M.
  3. as stated in Wilson v Church (13 Ch. D. 1, at p. 29), the principle being subsequently affirmed by the House of Lords in The National Bolivian Navigation Company v Wilson (1880) (5 AC 176)
  4. Re Upper Churchill Water Rights Reversion Act , Full text of Supreme Court of Canada decision at LexUM  and CanLII
  5. McRae, Donald M. (2007). Canadian Yearbook of International Law, Volume 44; Volume 2006. Vancouver: UBC Press. pp. 232–234. ISBN   978-0-7748-1460-7. ISSN   0069-0058 . Retrieved 2012-08-23.
  6. Upper Churchill Reference , p. 332