Section 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867

Last updated

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:

Contents

13. Property and Civil Rights in the Province.

It is one of three key residuary powers in the Constitution Act, 1867 , together with the federal power of peace, order and good government and the provincial power over matters of a local or private nature in the province.

Extent

Provincial jurisdiction over property and civil rights embraces all private law transactions, which includes virtually all commercial transactions. Note that "civil rights" in this context does not refer to civil rights in the more modern sense of political liberties. Rather, it refers to private rights enforceable through civil courts. This power is generally balanced against the federal trade and commerce power and criminal law power. With respect to the former, In the Insurance Reference , [1] Viscount Haldane noted that:

the authority to legislate for the regulation of trade and commerce does not extend to the regulation by a licensing system of a particular trade.

It is the most powerful and expansive of the provincial constitutional provisions, and is capable of being applied in general matters and in specific cases, as noted by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council:

There appears to be no authority and no reason for the opinion that legislation in respect of property and civil rights must be general in character and not in respect of a particular right. Such a restriction would appear to eliminate the possibility of special legislation aimed at transferring a particular right or property from private hands to a public authority for public purposes. The Legislature is supreme in these matters, and its actions must be assumed to be taken with regard for justice and good conscience. They are not in any case subject to control by the courts. [2]

The power has even been used to dissolve specific injunctions, such as one issued against the KVP Company in 1948 for discharging noxious effluent into the Spanish River. [3]

Property and civil rights include:

  • rights arising from contract [4]
  • certain powers to prevent crime [5]
  • powers to control transactions taking place wholly within the province, even if the products themselves are imported [6] and, generally,
  • regulation of trade and industry within the province, [7] including
  • labour relations and the regulation of professions, [8]
  • trading in securities, [9] and
  • manufacturing, [10]

By themselves, incidental effects of provincial regulations on a federal sphere of influence do not change their true nature. [11] Moreover, the fact that a valid provincial regulation may affect an export trade or the cost of doing business is similarly not conclusive of determining whether it is made "in relation to" that power. [12]

If a provincial law affects rights of individuals outside the province:

  • if it is, in pith and substance, provincial, ancillary effects on the rights of individuals outside the province are irrelevant, [13] but
  • where it is, in pith and substance, legislation in relation to the rights of individuals outside the province, it will be ultra vires the province [14]

Further reading

Related Research Articles

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

The implied bill of rights is a theory in Canadian jurisprudence which proposed that as a consequence of the British North America Act, certain important civil liberties could not be abrogated by the government. The theory was never adopted in a majority decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, and was rejected by the court in 1978. The enactment and interpretation of the statutory Bill of Rights, and later the constitutional Charter of Rights and Freedoms, provided alternative formulations of the limits applicable to civil liberties.

In Canada, taxation is a prerogative shared between the federal government and the various provincial and territorial legislatures.

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.

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>Margarine Reference</i> Canadian constitutional decision

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.

<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>Canada Temperance Act</i> Repealed Canadian statute

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.

<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.

The Double aspect doctrine in Canadian constitutional law is one that allows for laws to be created by both provincial and federal governments in relation to the same subject matter. Typically, the federalist system assigns subject matters of legislation to a single head of power. However, certain matters have several dimensions to them, such that for one purpose the matter will fall to one head of power, while for another purpose, it will fall to the other. For example, highway traffic laws fall into the property and civil rights power of the province, but equally, can be a criminal offence which is in the criminal law power of the federal government.

<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>Caloil Inc v Canada (AG)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

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(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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Abitibi Power and Paper Company</span>

Abitibi Power and Paper Company Limited was a forest products business based in Montreal, Quebec, that was founded in 1914. The firm was a mainstay of the Canadian newsprint industry in the first half of the 20th century, and now forms part of Abitibi-Consolidated.

<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.

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>Reference re Pan‑Canadian Securities Regulation</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Reference re Pan‑Canadian Securities Regulation, 2018 SCC 48 is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, dealing with the Canadian doctrine of cooperative federalism and how it intersects with the power of the Parliament of Canada over trade and commerce, as well as discussing the nature of parliamentary sovereignty in Canada.

References

  1. ↑ The Attorney General for the Dominion of Canada v The Attorney General for the Provinces of Alberta, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec and Saskatchewan, The Canadian Insurance Federation and the Manufacturers Association of Canada and another [1916] UKPC 12 , [1916] 1 A.C. 588(24 February 1916), P.C. (on appeal from Canada)
  2. ↑ Abitibi Power and Paper Company Limited v Montreal Trust Company and others [1943] UKPC 37, [1943] AC 536(8 July 1943)(on appeal from Ontario)
  3. ↑ The KVP Company Limited Act, 1950 , S.O. 1950, c. 33 , dissolving an injunction granted in McKie v. The K.V.P. Company Limited (and four other actions), 1948 CanLII 93 (15 April 1948), Superior Court of Justice (Ontario,Canada) (subsequently upheld in K.V.P. Company Ltd. v. McKie et al., 1948 CanLII 14 (22 November 1948), Court of Appeal (Ontario,Canada) and K.V.P. Co. Ltd. v. McKie et al., 1949 CanLII 8 , [1949] SCR 698(4 October 1949)
  4. ↑ Citizen's Insurance Co. v. Parsons
  5. ↑ Bedard v. Dawson
  6. ↑ Caloil Inc. v Attorney General of Canada
  7. ↑ Ward v. Canada (Attorney General) , at par. 42
  8. ↑ Law Society of British Columbia v. Mangat
  9. ↑ Multiple Access Ltd. v. McCutcheon
  10. ↑ Reference re Agricultural Products Marketing Act
  11. ↑ Attorney General of Quebec v. Kellogg's Co. of Canada
  12. ↑ Carnation Co. v. Quebec Agricultural Marketing Board
  13. ↑ Edgar F. Ladore and others v George Bennett and others [1939] UKPC 33 , [1939] 3 D.L.R. 1, [1939] AC. 468(8 May 1939), P.C. (on appeal from Ontario)
  14. ↑ Re Upper Churchill Water Rights Reversion Act
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.