42:
347:
Their
Lordships cannot concur in this view. The declared object of Parliament in passing the Act is that there should be uniform legislation in all the provinces respecting the traffic in intoxicating liquors, with a view to promote temperance in the Dominion. Parliament does not treat the promotion
357:
The manner of bringing the prohibitions and penalties of the Act into force, which
Parliament has thought fit to adopt, does not alter its general and uniform character. Parliament deals with the subject as one of general and uniform concern to the Dominion, upon which uniformity of legislation is
352:
Smith upheld the law as a valid exercise of federal power under the doctrine of "peace, order and good government" which means that any law that cannot be found to be allocated to the provincial head of power under section 92 must necessarily fall into the residual power granted to the federal
327:). Benjamin argued that Parliament cannot delegate its powers to any other part of government. The law could best be characterized as either falling into the provincial power to legislate on matters related to taverns and saloons (section 92(9) of the
230:
The underlying issue in the case was whether alcohol regulation was a matter of importance to the country as a whole, and therefore under federal jurisdiction, or whether it was a local matter, subject to provincial jurisdiction. The
609:
367:. In the closing paragraph of the decision, Smith stated the fact that he did not comment on the reasons of the Supreme Court in the earlier case did not mean that the Committee disagreed with the Supreme Court's reasons.
442:
362:
As the issue was decided to fall under the general nature of the "peace, order and good government" power, it was considered unnecessary to determine whether it could have come under a more specific head of
291:
of selling alcohol. The prosecution had been brought by a private prosecutor, who was not an agent of the
Attorney General of New Brunswick. The conviction was affirmed by the New Brunswick Supreme Court
410:
241:
has been criticised by commentators over the past century as being an outlier in the case-law regarding the "peace, order and good government" power, but has never been formally overruled.
353:
government. The law was found to be in relation to public order and safety, and thus was a matter of general concern to all of Canada. As to the manner of its operation, Smith noted:
422:
334:
281:
604:
364:
215:
305:
199:
55:
568:
Decisions of the
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council relating to the British North America Act, 1867 and the Canadian Constitution, 1867–1954
417:
This case is included in the three volume set of significant decisions of the
Judicial Committee on the construction and interpretation of the
223:
324:
141:
599:
433:
prepare the collection "for the convenience of the Bench and Bar in Canada". This case was included in the first volume of the set.
235:
asserted federal jurisdiction, but implemented on a local basis. The
Judicial Committee upheld the validity of the federal statute.
624:
370:
As was the practice of the
Judicial Committee at that time, there were no dissenting reasons from other members of the committee.
405:
211:
180:
619:
388:
was to restrict the manner in which the more specific heads of federal power were to be interpreted. In the subsequent case of
614:
430:
113:
312:. At that time, appeals could go directly to the Judicial Committee from the provincial appellate courts, bypassing the
348:
of temperance as desirable in one province more than in another, but as desirable everywhere throughout the
Dominion.
260:
146:
466:
296:, which followed the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada and held that the act was constitutionally valid.
395:
313:
267:
329:
380:
340:
255:
151:
136:
250:
195:
482:
99:
41:
429:. Following the abolition of Canadian appeals to the Judicial Committee, Garson directed that the
390:
287:
In a separate case two years later, Charles
Russell, a local pub owner, was convicted under the
555:
The
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council 1833–1876: Its Origins, Structure and Development
320:
544:, 5th ed., supplemented (Toronto: Thomson Reuters, looseleaf current to 2023), para. 8:2.
497:
83:
462:
309:
203:
131:
259:
which allowed a province or city to hold a plebiscite on banning the sale of alcohol.
593:
426:
343:
gave the decision for the Judicial Committee. He rejected these submissions, saying:
17:
276:
570:, vol. I (Ottawa: Queen's Printer and Controller of Stationery, 1954), p. iii.
337:(section 92(13)), or matters of a local or private nature (section 92(16)).
221:. The case expanded upon the jurisprudence that was previously discussed in
46:
First case considering the federal "peace, order and good government" power
194:
is a Canadian constitutional law decision dealing with the power of the
443:
List of Canadian appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
610:
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council cases on appeal from Canada
467:"The Effect of Alcohol on the Canadian Constitution ... Seriously"
394:, followed by others from the Privy Council, the influence of the
398:
diminished and that of the provinces was significantly expanded.
557:(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), pp. 221–222.
411:
Ontario (Attorney General) v. Canada Temperance Federation
206:, including Canada. The Judicial Committee held that the
581:
Decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
514:
The Supreme Court of Canada: History of the Institution
358:
desirable, and the Parliament alone can so deal with it.
263:, held such a plebiscite, which carried successfully.
325:
Attorney General of the Confederate States of America
173:
165:
160:
124:
119:
109:
95:
90:
79:
71:
61:
51:
34:
516:(Toronto: Osgoode Society, 1985), pp. 4–9, 42.
355:
345:
404:continued to govern the interpretation of the
408:power until it was effectively overturned by
8:
524:
522:
40:
31:
423:Minister of Justice and Attorney General
421:, prepared on the direction of the then
210:was valid federal legislation under the
202:, at that time the highest court in the
454:
306:Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
200:Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
56:Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
512:James G. Snell and Frederick Vaughan,
198:. The case was decided in 1882 by the
308:in Britain, the highest court of the
27:1882 Canadian constitutional law case
7:
284:. That decision was not appealed.
224:Citizen's Insurance Co. v. Parsons
25:
605:Canadian constitutional case law
406:peace, order and good government
300:Appeal to the Judicial Committee
212:peace, order and good government
181:peace, order and good government
484:City of Fredericton v The Queen
272:City of Fredericton v The Queen
183:, constitutional interpretation
101:City of Fredericton v The Queen
114:Supreme Court of New Brunswick
1:
304:Russell then appealed to the
542:Constitutional Law of Canada
540:Peter Hogg and Wade Wright,
472:. (2011) 57:1 McGill LJ 189.
86:, 7 App.Cas. 829, 8 CRAC 502
66:Charles Russell v The Queen
319:Russell was represented by
641:
566:Richard A. Olmsted (ed.),
384:was upheld, the effect of
261:Fredericton, New Brunswick
600:1882 in Canadian case law
341:Sir Montague Edward Smith
335:property and civil rights
178:
39:
625:Alcohol in New Brunswick
282:trade and commerce power
396:Supreme Court of Canada
314:Supreme Court of Canada
268:Supreme Court of Canada
620:New Brunswick case law
503:, 7 App.Cas. 829 (PC).
427:Stuart Sinclair Garson
419:Constitution Act, 1867
360:
350:
330:Constitution Act, 1867
274:held that the law was
218:Constitution Act, 1867
615:Alcohol law in Canada
431:Department of Justice
381:Canada Temperance Act
289:Canada Temperance Act
256:Canada Temperance Act
233:Canada Temperance Act
208:Canada Temperance Act
142:Sir Robert P. Collier
251:Parliament of Canada
18:Russell v. The Queen
529:Russell v The Queen
499:Russell v The Queen
191:Russell v The Queen
35:Russell v The Queen
391:Hodge v. The Queen
280:under the federal
216:section 91 of the
214:power, set out in
196:federal Parliament
169:Sir Montague Smith
137:Sir Montague Smith
132:Sir Barnes Peacock
486:(1880), 3 SCR 505
187:
186:
152:Sir Richard Couch
103:(1880), 3 SCR 505
16:(Redirected from
632:
584:
577:
571:
564:
558:
551:
545:
538:
532:
526:
517:
510:
504:
495:
489:
480:
474:
473:
471:
459:
147:Sir James Hannen
120:Court membership
44:
32:
21:
640:
639:
635:
634:
633:
631:
630:
629:
590:
589:
588:
587:
578:
574:
565:
561:
552:
548:
539:
535:
527:
520:
511:
507:
496:
492:
481:
477:
469:
461:
460:
456:
451:
439:
376:
302:
247:
156:
47:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
638:
636:
628:
627:
622:
617:
612:
607:
602:
592:
591:
586:
585:
572:
559:
546:
533:
518:
505:
490:
475:
463:Morris J. Fish
453:
452:
450:
447:
446:
445:
438:
435:
375:
372:
321:Judah Benjamin
310:British Empire
301:
298:
246:
243:
204:British Empire
185:
184:
176:
175:
171:
170:
167:
163:
162:
158:
157:
155:
154:
149:
144:
139:
134:
128:
126:
125:Judges sitting
122:
121:
117:
116:
111:
107:
106:
97:
93:
92:
88:
87:
81:
77:
76:
73:
69:
68:
63:
62:Full case name
59:
58:
53:
49:
48:
45:
37:
36:
26:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
637:
626:
623:
621:
618:
616:
613:
611:
608:
606:
603:
601:
598:
597:
595:
582:
576:
573:
569:
563:
560:
556:
553:P.A. Howell,
550:
547:
543:
537:
534:
530:
525:
523:
519:
515:
509:
506:
502:
500:
494:
491:
487:
485:
479:
476:
468:
464:
458:
455:
448:
444:
441:
440:
436:
434:
432:
428:
424:
420:
415:
413:
412:
407:
403:
399:
397:
393:
392:
387:
383:
382:
378:Although the
373:
371:
368:
366:
365:federal power
359:
354:
349:
344:
342:
338:
336:
332:
331:
326:
322:
317:
315:
311:
307:
299:
297:
295:
290:
285:
283:
279:
278:
273:
269:
266:In 1880, the
264:
262:
258:
257:
252:
249:In 1878, the
244:
242:
240:
236:
234:
228:
226:
225:
220:
219:
213:
209:
205:
201:
197:
193:
192:
182:
177:
172:
168:
164:
161:Case opinions
159:
153:
150:
148:
145:
143:
140:
138:
135:
133:
130:
129:
127:
123:
118:
115:
112:
110:Appealed from
108:
104:
102:
98:
96:Prior actions
94:
89:
85:
82:
78:
74:
70:
67:
64:
60:
57:
54:
50:
43:
38:
33:
30:
19:
580:
575:
567:
562:
554:
549:
541:
536:
528:
513:
508:
498:
493:
488:, 2 Cart 27.
483:
478:
457:
418:
416:
409:
401:
400:
389:
385:
379:
377:
369:
361:
356:
351:
346:
339:
328:
318:
303:
293:
288:
286:
275:
271:
270:decision in
265:
254:
248:
238:
237:
232:
229:
222:
217:
207:
190:
189:
188:
179:temperance,
100:
91:Case history
75:23 June 1882
65:
29:
277:intra vires
253:passed the
166:Decision by
105:, 2 Cart 27
594:Categories
501:, UKPC 33
449:References
245:Background
583:, p. 145.
579:Olmsted,
531:, p. 841.
414:in 1946.
80:Citations
437:See also
323:(former
174:Keywords
402:Russell
386:Russell
294:en banc
239:Russell
84:UKPC 33
72:Decided
374:Impact
470:(PDF)
52:Court
333:),
596::
521:^
465:.
425:,
316:.
227:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
