Ontario (Attorney General) 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 (p.o.g.g.) power of the Constitution Act, 1867. This 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.

Contents

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 Toronto Electric Commissions v. Snider, provided for a very narrow use of the p.o.g.g. power in the context of emergencies.

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