Ontario (Attorney General) v. Canada Temperance Federation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article does not cite any references or sources. (December 2007) Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. |
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 |
[edit] 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.
[edit] 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.
[edit] 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.
