Toronto Electric Commissioners v Snider

Last updated
Toronto Electric Commissioners v Snider
Royal Arms of the United Kingdom (Privy Council).svg
Court Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
Full case nameThe Toronto Electric Commissioners v Colin G Snider and others
Decided20 January 1925
Citation(s)[1925] UKPC 2, [1925] AC 396 (P.C.)
Case history
Prior action(s)Toronto Electric Commissioners v. Snider, 55 O.L.R. 454
Appealed from Ontario Court of Appeal
Court membership
Judges sitting Viscount Haldane, Lord Dunedin, Lord Atkinson, Lord Wrenbury, Lord Salvesen
Case opinions
Decision by Viscount Haldane
Keywords
Canadian federalism, Labour relations, Property and civil rights

Toronto Electric Commissioners v Snider [1] 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.

Contents

Background

In 1923, the employees for the Toronto Electric Commission, through the Canadian Electrical Trades Union, went on strike over working conditions and wages. The union applied under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act to establish a dispute resolution board. The Commission asserted that this was in conflict with Ontario's Trade Disputes Act, and so applied to have the Act declared ultra vires as being beyond federal jurisdiction.

In a 4-1 decision by Ferguson J.A., the Ontario Court of Appeal held that the federal Act was constitutional, as it derived from the s. 91 powers relating to peace, order and good government, trade and commerce, and criminal law. Hodgins J.A. dissented, stating that the Act could not stand, as it did not deal with a case of:

  • emergency,
  • general Canadian interest or importance, or
  • with any of the powers listed in s. 91.

Opinion of the Council

The Ontario decision was reversed on appeal to the Privy Council. Viscount Haldane, agreeing with Hodgins' dissenting opinion, held that the Act could not be upheld under:

Aftermath

After Snider, the Parliament of Canada revised the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act to restrict its application to federally incorporated companies and federally regulated industries, but also allowed it to be extended to any province by Act of its legislature. Six provinces exercised that option by 1928, and by 1932 all provinces other than Prince Edward Island had done so. [2]

In World War II, federal jurisdiction was restored under the Wartime Labour Relations Regulations , which lasted until 1947. Afterwards, the provinces asserted their jurisdiction, and labour relations subsequently became regulated province by province, with federal authority only extending to federally regulated industries. [3]

Subsequent jurisprudence

In 1979, the Supreme Court of Canada, in Northern Telecom v. Communications Workers [4] summarized post-Snider jurisprudence into the following principles: [5]

  1. Parliament has no authority over labour relations as such nor over the terms of a contract of employment; exclusive provincial competence is the rule.
  2. By way of exception, however, Parliament may assert exclusive jurisdiction over these matters if it is shown that such jurisdiction is an integral part of its primary competence over some other single federal subject.
  3. Primary federal competence over a given subject can prevent the application of provincial law relating to labour relations and the conditions of employment but only if it is demonstrated that federal authority over these matters is an integral element of such federal competence.
  4. Thus, the regulation of wages to be paid by an undertaking, service or business, and the regulation of its labour relations, being related to an integral part of the operation of the undertaking, service or business, are removed from provincial jurisdiction and immune from the effect of provincial law if the undertaking, service or business is a federal one.
  5. The question whether an undertaking, service or business is a federal one depends on the nature of its operation.
  6. In order to determine the nature of the operation, one must look at the normal or habitual activities of the business as those of "a going concern", without regard for exceptional or casual factors; otherwise, the Constitution could not be applied with any degree of continuity and regularity.

Notes

  1. ↑ The Toronto Electric Commissioners v Colin G. Snider and others [1925] UKPC 2 , [1925] AC 396(20 January 1925), P.C. (on appeal from Ontario)
  2. ↑ Scott 1960 , p. 159
  3. ↑ Scott 1960 , pp. 159–160
  4. ↑ Northern Telecom v. Communications Workers, 1979 CanLII 3 (SCC), [1980] 1 SCR 115 Full text of Supreme Court of Canada decision at LexUM  and CanLII
  5. ↑ Northern Telecom, pp. 131–132

Related Research Articles

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

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Law of Canada</span>

The legal system of Canada is pluralist: its foundations lie in the English common law system, the French civil law system, and Indigenous law systems developed by the various Indigenous Nations.

The court system of Canada forms the country's judiciary, formally known as "The King on the Bench", which interprets the law and is made up of many courts differing in levels of legal superiority and separated by jurisdiction. Some of the courts are federal in nature, while others are provincial or territorial.

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>Citizens Insurance Co of Canada v Parsons</i> Canadian constitutional law case – 1881

Citizens Insurance Co of Canada v Parsons is a major Canadian constitutional case decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, at that time the highest court of appeal for the British Empire. The case decided a significant issue of the division of powers between the federal Parliament and the provincial legislatures. The approach taken to provincial power, as advocated by Premier Oliver Mowat of Ontario, began to set the constitutional framework for broad provincial powers and a reduction in the centralist vision of Confederation espoused by Prime Minister John A. Macdonald.

<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.

Ontario Hydro v Ontario (Labour Relations Board), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 327 is a leading constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the federal declaratory power and the peace, order and good government power under the Constitution Act, 1867. The Court held that the regulation of relations between Ontario government and employees of a nuclear power plant was under federal jurisdiction under the federal declaratory power of section 92(10)(c) of the Constitution Act, 1867, and the national concern branch of the peace, order and good government.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Canadian labour law</span>

Canadian labour law is that body of law which regulates the rights, restrictions, and obligations of trade unions, workers, and employers in Canada.

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.

Section 92(10) of the Constitution Act, 1867, also known as the works and undertakings power, grants the provincial legislatures of Canada unless otherwise noted in section (c), the authority to legislate on:

10. Local Works and Undertakings other than such as are of the following Classes:

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.

The main responsibility of the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) is to interpret and administer the Industrial Relations and Occupational Health and Safety sections of the Canada Labour Code. The CIRB also contributes to changing labour laws unlawfully to any work, undertaking or business that falls under the authority of the Parliament of Canada.

<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">Canadian maritime law</span>

Canadian maritime law is based on the field of "Navigation and Shipping" vested in the Parliament of Canada by virtue of s. 91(10) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

<i>Labour Conventions Reference</i>

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.

<i>NIL/TU,O Child and Family Services Society v BC Government and Service Employees Union</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

NIL/TU,O Child and Family Services Society v BC Government and Service Employees' Union is a leading Supreme Court of Canada constitutional law case dealing with jurisdiction over labour relations in the context of federalism and Aboriginal rights.

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.

San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236 (1959), is a United States labor law case, concerning the scope of federal preemption against state law for labor rights.

<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.

References

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.