Winner v SMT (Eastern) Ltd

Last updated
Winner v SMT (Eastern) Ltd
MCI MC 6 MH.jpg
Court Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
Decided22 February 1954
Citation(s)1954 UKPC 8
Case history
Prior action(s)Winner v. S.M.T. (Eastern) Ltd., 1951 CanLII 2, [1951] SCR 887(22 October 1951), reversing a decision of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick, Appeal Division, (1950) 26 MPR 27
Appealed from Supreme Court of Canada
Court membership
Judges sitting Lord Porter, Lord Oaksey, Lord Tucker, Lord Asquith of Bishopstone and Lord Cohen
Case opinions
Decision by Lord Porter

Winner v SMT (Eastern) Ltd [1] is the last case of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council that affected Canadian constitutional jurisprudence. [2] The Supreme Court of Canada case, from which it arose, is also notable for summarizing the essence of Canadian citizenship.

Contents

Background

Israel Winner (operating as Mackenzie Coach Lines) operated a bus service between Boston and Glace Bay, Nova Scotia. In addition to authority granted by the Interstate Commerce Commission for that part of the service from Boston to Calais, Maine, he applied to the New Brunswick Motor Carrier Board for authority to operate his service in that province. The Board issued a permit, subject to the condition that Winner would not pick up or drop off any passengers within the province. S.M.T. (Eastern) Limited was a New Brunswick company that held a permit from the Board that entitled it to carry passengers from Saint Stephen, New Brunswick via Saint John to the Nova Scotia border.

Winner contended that the Board did not have the authority to attach such a condition to his permit, and it also did not have the power to prevent him from picking up and dropping off passengers travelling within the province. S.M.T. (Eastern) Limited applied to the Supreme Court of New Brunswick, Chancery Division, for an injunction restraining such activity.

The courts below

Hughes J of the Chancery Division declined to issue an injunction until the Appellate Division gave him answers to the following questions:

  1. Are the operations or proposed operations of the defendant within the Province of New Brunswick, or any part or parts thereof as above set forth, prohibited or in any way affected by the provisions of The Motor Carrier Act, 1937 and amendments thereto, or orders made by the said Motor Carrier Board?
  2. Is 13 George VI, c. 47 (1949) [which extended the scope of the Board's permits to include points outside the province] intra vires of the Legislature of the Province of New Brunswick?
  3. Are the proposed operations prohibited or in any way affected by Regulation 13 of The Motor Vehicle Act, c. 20 of the Acts of 1934 and amendments, or under sections 6 or 53 or any other sections of The Motor Vehicle Act?

The Appellate Division answered thus:

  1. Yes, prohibited, until the Defendant complies with the provisions of the Act.
  2. Yes, in respect of this Defendant.
  3. Yes, until the Defendant complies with the provisions of the Act, and the Regulations made thereunder.

Winner appealed.

At the Supreme Court of Canada

Appeal was allowed. In an 8–1 decision the Court held that Winner was entitled to pick up and drop off passengers that were on an international or interprovincial journey, but not with regard to journeys between points within the province.

For his part, Rinfret CJ answered that the New Brunswick Act and Regulation did not prohibit Winner's operations, and the conditions that the Board had attached to its permit were ultra vires .

The nature of Canadian citizenship

In his opinion, Rand J. observed that citizens were free to move across provincial borders and live wherever they chose to, and only the federal government could limit this right:

What this implies is that a province cannot, by depriving a Canadian of the means of working, force him to leave it: it cannot divest him of his right or capacity to remain and to engage in work there: that capacity inhering as a constituent element of his citizenship status is beyond nullification by provincial action. The contrary view would involve the anomaly that although British Columbia could not by mere prohibition deprive a naturalized foreigner of his means of livelihood, it could do so to a native-born Canadian. He may, of course, disable himself from exercising his capacity or he may be regulated in it by valid provincial law in other aspects. But that attribute of citizenship lies outside of those civil rights committed to the province, and is analogous to the capacity of a Dominion corporation which the province cannot sterilize.
It follows, a fortiori , that a province cannot prevent a Canadian from entering it except, conceivably, in temporary circumstances, for some local reason as, for example, health. With such a prohibitory power, the country could be converted into a number of enclaves and the "union" which the original provinces sought and obtained disrupted. In a like position is a subject of a friendly foreign country; for practical purposes he enjoys all the rights of the citizen.
Such, then, is the national status embodying certain inherent or constitutive characteristics, of members of the Canadian public, and it can be modified, defeated or destroyed, as for instance by outlawry, only by Parliament. [3]
Appeal and cross-appeal

The Attorney General of Ontario sought leave to appeal the part of the decision that allowed the picking up and dropping of passengers in the province, whether the journey began or ended inside or outside the province. Winner cross-appealed against the prohibition of purely intraprovincial traffic.

At the Privy Council

The appeal was dismissed, and the cross-appeal was allowed. In his opinion, Lord Porter held that this case fell within the same scope as that of the Radio Reference in determining the nature of works and undertakings and under which jurisdiction they fall. As Winner was carrying on an undertaking connecting New Brunswick with both Nova Scotia and Maine, there exists an undertaking connecting province with province and beyond the limits of the province. Therefore, it was an undertaking that fell within federal jurisdiction, and it was one and indivisible.

It was also argued that the province could regulate who could use its roads. While the Board agreed that such jurisdiction did exist, it was limited and could not interfere with connecting undertakings. As Lord Porter declared:

It must be remembered that it is the undertaking not the roads which comes within the jurisdiction of the Dominion, but legislation which denies the use of provincial roads to such an undertaking or sterilizes the undertaking itself is an interference with the prerogative of the Dominion.

Impact

Winner effectively placed all commercial interprovincial and international motor vehicle traffic under federal jurisdiction.

Rand J's comments relating to mobility rights of Canadians, while obiter in this case, have significantly affected Canadian jurisprudence.

Related Research Articles

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

<i>Constitution Act, 1867</i> Primary constitutional document of Canada

The Constitution Act, 1867, originally enacted as the British North America Act, 1867, is a major part of the Constitution of Canada. The act created a federal dominion and defines much of the operation of the Government of Canada, including its federal structure, the House of Commons, the Senate, the justice system, and the taxation system. In 1982, with the patriation of the Constitution, the British North America Acts which were originally enacted by the British Parliament, including this Act, were renamed. However, the acts are still known by their original names in records of the United Kingdom. Amendments were also made at this time: section 92A was added, giving provinces greater control over non-renewable natural resources.

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 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>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>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.

<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>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.

Caloil Inc v Canada (AG) is a leading constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the Trade and Commerce power under section 91(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867. The Court upheld a federal law prohibiting the transport or sale of imported oil in a certain region of Ontario.

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.

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.

Because the country contains two major language groups and numerous other linguistic minorities, in Canada official languages policy has always been an important and high-profile area of public policy.

<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>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.

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 act 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.

References

  1. ↑ Israel Winner (doing business under the name and style of Mackenzie Coach Lines) and others v. S.M.T. (Eastern) Limited and others [1954] UKPC 8 (22 February 1954), P.C. (on appeal from Canada)
  2. ↑ McCormick, Peter (2000). Supreme at last: the evolution of the Supreme Court of Canada . Toronto: James Lorimer & Company Ltd. p.  11. ISBN   1-55028-693-5.
  3. ↑ Winner (SCC), pp. 919–920
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.