العربية
中国
Français
Deutsch
Ελληνική
हिन्दी
Italiano
日本語
Português
Русский
EspañolONTARIO (ATTORNEY GENERAL) V. CANADA TEMPERANCE FEDERATION
(Redirected from Ontario v. Canada Temperance Federation)
'''Ontario (Attorney General) v. Canada Temperance Federation''' (1946) 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. This was the first decision to bring back the "national concerns" branch of p.o.g.g. since it was first suggested in the Local Prohibitions case.
Here, the Council revisited the issue dealt with in ''Russell v. The Queen'' which examined whether the federal Canada Temperance Act (1927) was valid. Haldane, in ''Russell'', provided for a very narrow use of the p.o.g.g. power in the context of emergencies. Consequently, for over 60 years numerous federal laws were struck-down.
Viscount Simon, for the Council, upheld the ruling in ''Russel'', but also suggested that p.o.g.g. could be invoked for matters of "national concern":
:''In their Lordships' opinion, the true test must be found in the real subject matter of the legislation: if it is such that it goes beyond local or provincial concern or interests and must from its inherent nature be the concern of the Dominion as a whole (as, for example, in the Aeronautics case and the Radio case), then it will fall within the competence of the Dominion Parliament as a matter affecting the peace, order and good government of Canada, though it may in another aspect touch on matters specially reserved to the provincial legislatures.''
This became the foundation of the "national dimensions" test.
Many decisions to follow struggled to reconcile this case with that of ''Russell'', which seem to give contradictory interpretations of the p.o.g.g. power. Though not stated by Simon, the decision effectively overturned ''Russell''.
The "national concern" test was subsequently applied and elaborated on in ''Johannesson v. West St. Paul'', ''Munro v. National Capital Commission'', and ''R. v. Crown Zellerbach''.
★ List of Judicial Committee of the Privy Council cases
'''Ontario (Attorney General) v. Canada Temperance Federation''' (1946) 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. This was the first decision to bring back the "national concerns" branch of p.o.g.g. since it was first suggested in the Local Prohibitions case.
| Contents |
| Background |
| Opinion of the Council |
| Aftermath |
| See also |
Background
Here, the Council revisited the issue dealt with in ''Russell v. The Queen'' which examined whether the federal Canada Temperance Act (1927) was valid. Haldane, in ''Russell'', provided for a very narrow use of the p.o.g.g. power in the context of emergencies. Consequently, for over 60 years numerous federal laws were struck-down.
Opinion of the Council
Viscount Simon, for the Council, upheld the ruling in ''Russel'', but also suggested that p.o.g.g. could be invoked for matters of "national concern":
:''In their Lordships' opinion, the true test must be found in the real subject matter of the legislation: if it is such that it goes beyond local or provincial concern or interests and must from its inherent nature be the concern of the Dominion as a whole (as, for example, in the Aeronautics case and the Radio case), then it will fall within the competence of the Dominion Parliament as a matter affecting the peace, order and good government of Canada, though it may in another aspect touch on matters specially reserved to the provincial legislatures.''
This became the foundation of the "national dimensions" test.
Aftermath
Many decisions to follow struggled to reconcile this case with that of ''Russell'', which seem to give contradictory interpretations of the p.o.g.g. power. Though not stated by Simon, the decision effectively overturned ''Russell''.
The "national concern" test was subsequently applied and elaborated on in ''Johannesson v. West St. Paul'', ''Munro v. National Capital Commission'', and ''R. v. Crown Zellerbach''.
See also
★ List of Judicial Committee of the Privy Council cases
This article provided by Wikipedia. To edit the contents of this article, click here for original source.
psst.. try this: add to faves
