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.[1]
After Nadan, the Imperial Parliament passed the Statute of Westminster 1931, following which the Parliament of Canada abolished criminal appeals to the Privy Council again in 1933.[5]
In 1933, The British Coal Corporation and several other coal-importing companies had been convicted in the Court of King's Bench for the Province of Quebec (Appeal Side) on charges under the Criminal Code and the Combines Investigation Act, and were subject to fines as well as the complete prohibition of their business in importing anthracitecoal into Canada. Appeals to the Court's Appeal Side were dismissed in 1934. They sought to appeal these convictions to the Privy Council, arguing that the statute contained no words which took away or diminished that prerogative, either expressly or by implication.
Writing for the Privy Council, Lord Sankey first described the origins of the Judicial Committee of the British Privy Council, as created by the Judicial Committee Act 1833 (as amended by the Judicial Committee Act 1844). In Sankey's words, "It is clear that the Committee is regarded in the Act as a judicial body or Court" which "exercised as a Court of law in reality, though not in name, the residual prerogative of the King in Council."[6]
Having established that the JCPC had the role of a court of law, Sankey went on to outline the relevant legal history between the passage of the Judicial Committee Acts and the Statute of Westminster, including the enactment of the Colonial Laws Validity Act. Sankey distinguished Nadan from the present case by noting that the former decision had been based on the inconsistency of Canada's earlier prohibition of criminal appeals to the Privy Council with the Judicial Committee Acts and the Colonial Laws Validity Act. Specifically, the prohibition was inconsistent on two grounds:
It was repugnant to the Judicial Committee Acts, running afoul of the Colonial Laws Validity Act by implication.
To be effective, it had to have an extraterritorial dimension, which Canadian laws could not possess until the passage of the Statute of Westminster.[7]
It remained to be seen, Sankey noted, whether the British North America Act gave Canada the legislative competence to prohibit criminal appeals after the Statute of Westminster had abrogated the Colonial Laws Validity Act and permitted the Parliament of Canada to pass laws having extraterritorial operation:
Their Lordships have now to decide that very same question and to decide it, as they conceive, without any direct help or guidance from earlier decisions of the Judicial Committee, now that the Statute has removed the two difficulties which were decisive in Nadan's case.[7]
While the Statute of Westminster had removed the two limits that prevented Canada from prohibiting criminal appeals to the JCPC in Nadan, Sankey went on to argue that such a prohibition was within the scope of Canada's legislative competence under the British North America Act. In interpreting the B.N.A. Act, Sankey approached the Act in a manner similar to that which he used in the 1931 Persons case. "It must be remembered what the nature and scope of the Act are," he wrote. "In interpreting a constituent .. or organic statute such as the Act, that construction most beneficial to the widest possible amplitude of its powers must be adopted."[8]
Applying this "large and liberal"[9] method of construction to the B.N.A. Act, Sankey found that s. 91 of the Act did empower the Canadian Parliament to forbid appeals to the JCPC.
It does not indeed do so by express terms, but it does so by necessary intendment. Sect. 91 of the Act, read along with the rest of the Act, is, according to its true construction in their Lordships' opinion, apart from the limitations already referred to, intended to make and is apt to make the Dominion Legislature supreme and endow it with the same authority as the Imperial Parliament, within the assigned limits of subject and area...[10]
While noting that the Parliament of the United Kingdom could, if it wished, repeal all or part of the Statute of Westminster, enabling it to reassert its authority over Canadian affairs at any time, Sankey noted that this was a matter of "theory and has no relation to realities. In truth Canada is in enjoyment of the full scope of self-government."[11]
Aftermath
The Parliament of Canada subsequently abolished civil appeals to the Privy Council in 1949,[12] after the Privy Council affirmed that Parliament had the right to do so.[13]
Nature of the Statute of Westminster 1931
The Statute of Westminster 1931 has been described as "the last of the Imperial Acts of the Parliament applicable to all the Dominions. It granted Canada...what amounted to independence."[14] More specifically, it removed limits on the legislative competence of the Parliament of Canada. "The Statute of Westminster had removed any legislative incompetence from the Canadian legislature and accordingly the legislature had full power to enact the section in question."[15]
The Statute of Westminster freed Dominion legislatures from the constraints of the Colonial Laws Validity Act, under which colonial laws "repugnant" to laws, orders, or regulations imposed by the United Kingdom Parliament were to be considered "absolutely void and inoperative."[16] That was the basis on which the prohibition of appeals to the Privy Council in criminal matters had been struck down in Nadan.
Related Research Articles
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.
The Statute of Westminster 1931 is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that sets the basis for the relationship between the Commonwealth realms and the Crown.
Canadian federalism involves the current nature and historical development of the federal system in Canada.
John Sankey, 1st Viscount Sankey, was a British lawyer, judge, Labour politician and Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, famous for many of his judgments in the House of Lords. He gave his name to the Sankey Declaration of the Rights of Man (1940).
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.
Ontario (AG) v Canada Temperance Federation was a famous Canadian constitutional decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and was among the first cases to examine the peace, order, and good government power of the Constitution Act, 1867. It was the first decision to bring back the "national concerns" branch of peace, order and good government since it was first suggested in the Local Prohibitions case.
The Canada Temperance Act, also known as the Scott Act, was an Act of the Parliament of Canada passed in 1878, which provided for a national framework for municipalities to opt in by plebiscite to a scheme of prohibition. It was repealed in 1984.
Nadan v R is a key ruling of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in determining the competence of the Parliament of Canada with respect to the restrictions laid out in the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865, and whether it possessed extraterritorial jurisdiction.
Cushing v Dupuy 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, including Canada. The case was on appeal from the courts of Quebec, and dealt with the following issues:
Until 1933, Article 66 of the Constitution of the Irish Free State permitted appeals of decisions of the Supreme Court of the Irish Free State to be made to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) in London. This was a requirement of the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921, which underpinned the creation of the Irish Free State. The treaty specified that the Free State's constitutional status would be the same as Canada, another British Dominion, whose local courts allowed further appeal to the JCPC.
Attorney General for Quebec v. Queen Insurance Company is a Canadian constitutional law decision dealing with the taxation and licensing powers of the provinces under the federal-provincial division of powers.
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.
References
↑ British Coal Corporation and others v The King[1935] UKPC 33, [1935] AC 500(6 June 1935), P.C.(on appeal from Quebec)
↑ British Coal v. the King [1935] A.C. 500, at 519
↑ British Coal v. the King [1935] A.C. 500, at 520
↑ Supreme Court Amendment Act, S.C. 1949 (2nd. session), c. 37, s. 3
↑ The Attorney-General of Ontario and others v The Attorney-General of Canada and others("Reference Re Abolition of Privy Council Appeals")[1947] UKPC 1, [1947] AC 128(13 January 1947), P.C.(on appeal from Canada)
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.
