29:
231:
The Act was amended in 1919 by adding s. 95(7) which provided that, if at the end of any crop year in any terminal elevator "the total surplus of grain is found in excess of one-quarter of one per cent of the gross amount of the grain received in the elevator during the crop year," such surplus would
95:
It is not within the power of
Parliament to regulate in the provinces particular occupations by a licensing system and otherwise, and of local works and undertakings, as such, however important and beneficial the ultimate purpose of the legislation may
239:. The Board commenced an action in the Exchequer Court of Canada to recover the value of such grain, which was calculated to be $ 43,431. Eastern Elevator, in its defence, pleaded there was no surplus, and that s. 95(7), as well as
573:
Reference re legislative jurisdiction of
Parliament of Canada to enact the Natural Products Marketing Act, 1934, and The Natural Products Marketing Act Amendment Act, 1935
312:, even though it was all destined for export (some of the grain stored on the site was for local markets), fell under provincial jurisdiction with respect to
614:
438:
2 Geo. V, (Can.) ch. 27 (1912), which was added to the Act by 9-10 Geo. V, ch. 40 (1919), and further amended by 10 Geo. V, ch. 6 (1919, 2nd session)
394:
210:
The Canada Grain Act was passed in 1912 to control and regulate, through The Board of Grain
Commissioners, the trade in grain. It provided for:
624:
619:
397:'s view of an exceptionally narrow interpretation of the federal government's trade and commerce power, which began to be relaxed in 1971 in
634:
629:
477:
387:
327:
639:
380:
on appeal to the Privy
Council. Lord Atkin's approval was later cited in support of the Privy Council's 1950 ruling in the
235:
For the 1920 crop year, Eastern
Elevator was determined to have a surplus of 1,107,330 pounds, found in its elevator at
326:, in his ruling, also rejected the idea that the matter could be regarded as a "national emergency" under the residual
469:
340:, in dissent, held that the Act could be upheld as a matter of national concern, citing jurisprudence dating back to
222:
the prohibition of persons operating or interested in a terminal elevator from buying or selling grain, as well as
448:
313:
287:
264:
74:
337:
181:
109:
334:, as it dealt not with agriculture but with a product of agriculture, and therefore was an article of trade.
267:, President of the Exchequer Court, confined his ruling to the effect of s. 95(7) only, determining it to be
580:
426:
316:. However, the Parliament of Canada could still assume jurisdiction if it invoked its power with respect to
195:
34:
576:
422:
323:
216:
the licensing of all owners and operators of elevators, warehouses and mills and certain traders in grain;
161:
127:
399:
28:
359:
342:
317:
250:
236:
382:
330:
power. He also rejected the federal contention that s. 95(7) could be supported under s. 95 of the
199:
151:
131:
558:
473:
461:
369:
305:
147:
123:
596:
219:
the supervision of the handling and storage of grain in and out of elevators, etc.; and
608:
171:
119:
60:
593:
The
Attorney General of British Columbia v The Attorney General of Canada and others
245:
377:
393:
The decision represents a high point of the
Supreme Court's adoption of the
280:
being an attempt to regulate profits or dealings which give rise to profits,
277:
it dealt with the right of ownership of the surplus of grain, as well as
358:
was amended to declare all grain elevators in Canada to be federal "
309:
286:
both of which fell within the provincial jurisdiction over
177:
167:
157:
143:
138:
115:
105:
100:
89:
81:
69:
59:
49:
42:
21:
466:The Federal Court of Canada: A History, 1875-1992
293:The ruling was appealed to the Supreme Court.
8:
301:The Exchequer Court's ruling was affirmed.
194:is an early constitutional decision of the
85:Judgment of the Exchequer Court affirmed.
54:The King v. Eastern Terminal Elevator Co.
498:
386:, in that part dealing with the federal
411:
362:" for the general advantage of Canada.
232:be sold for the benefit of the Board.
225:provisions for inspection and grading.
18:
7:
374:Natural Products Marketing Reference
419:R. v. Eastern Terminal Elevator Co.
376:, which was cited with approval by
462:"11: The Maclean Years, 1923–1942"
368:was subsequently cited in 1936 by
271:. In stating this, he ruled that:
14:
615:Canadian constitutional case law
328:peace, order and good government
243:itself, always were and are now
191:R v Eastern Terminal Elevator Co
73:APPEAL from the judgment of the
27:
22:R v Eastern Terminal Elevator Co
599:, AC 377 (28 January 1937)
579:, SCR 398 (17 June 1936),
297:At the Supreme Court of Canada
65:1925 CanLII 82 (SCC), SCR 434
1:
625:Supreme Court of Canada cases
562:, R.S.C. 1985, c. G-10, s. 55
425:, SCR 434 (5 May 1925),
620:Canadian federalism case law
354:Following the decision, the
16:Supreme Court of Canada case
470:University of Toronto Press
308:held that the marketing of
656:
635:Grain elevators in Canada
630:1925 in Canadian case law
449:Canadian Grain Commission
332:British North America Act
314:property and civil rights
288:property and civil rights
265:Alexander Kenneth Maclean
94:
75:Exchequer Court of Canada
43:Hearing: 9–10 March 1925
26:
447:replaced in 1971 by the
200:Trade and Commerce power
196:Supreme Court of Canada
35:Supreme Court of Canada
640:History of Thunder Bay
360:works and undertakings
318:works and undertakings
260:At the Exchequer Court
198:on the Constitution's
597:[1937] UKPC 9
460:Ian Bushnell (1997).
400:Caloil Inc. v. Canada
372:in his ruling in the
343:Russell v. The Queen
251:Parliament of Canada
241:The Canada Grain Act
237:Port Arthur, Ontario
45:Judgment: 5 May 1925
383:Margarine Reference
388:trade and commerce
187:
186:
647:
600:
590:
584:
570:
564:
560:Canada Grain Act
556:
550:
547:Eastern Elevator
544:
538:
535:Eastern Elevator
532:
526:
523:Eastern Elevator
520:
514:
511:Eastern Elevator
508:
502:
496:
490:
489:
487:
486:
457:
451:
445:
439:
436:
430:
416:
366:Eastern Elevator
356:Canada Grain Act
304:In his ruling,
101:Court membership
31:
19:
655:
654:
650:
649:
648:
646:
645:
644:
605:
604:
603:
591:
587:
571:
567:
557:
553:
545:
541:
533:
529:
521:
517:
509:
505:
497:
493:
484:
482:
480:
459:
458:
454:
446:
442:
437:
433:
417:
413:
409:
352:
299:
262:
256:
208:
116:Puisne Justices
44:
38:
17:
12:
11:
5:
653:
651:
643:
642:
637:
632:
627:
622:
617:
607:
606:
602:
601:
585:
577:1936 CanLII 21
565:
551:
539:
527:
515:
503:
491:
478:
452:
440:
431:
423:1925 CanLII 82
410:
408:
405:
351:
348:
298:
295:
284:
283:
282:
281:
278:
261:
258:
229:
228:
227:
226:
223:
220:
217:
207:
204:
185:
184:
179:
175:
174:
169:
165:
164:
159:
155:
154:
145:
141:
140:
136:
135:
117:
113:
112:
107:
103:
102:
98:
97:
92:
91:
87:
86:
83:
79:
78:
71:
67:
66:
63:
57:
56:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
32:
24:
23:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
652:
641:
638:
636:
633:
631:
628:
626:
623:
621:
618:
616:
613:
612:
610:
598:
594:
589:
586:
582:
581:Supreme Court
578:
574:
569:
566:
563:
561:
555:
552:
549:, pp. 442–444
548:
543:
540:
536:
531:
528:
524:
519:
516:
513:, pp. 446–447
512:
507:
504:
501:, p. 106
500:
499:Bushnell 1997
495:
492:
481:
479:0-8020-4207-4
475:
471:
467:
463:
456:
453:
450:
444:
441:
435:
432:
428:
427:Supreme Court
424:
420:
415:
412:
406:
404:
402:
401:
396:
395:Privy Council
391:
389:
385:
384:
379:
375:
371:
367:
363:
361:
357:
349:
347:
345:
344:
339:
335:
333:
329:
325:
321:
319:
315:
311:
307:
302:
296:
294:
291:
289:
279:
276:
275:
274:
273:
272:
270:
266:
259:
257:
254:
252:
248:
247:
242:
238:
233:
224:
221:
218:
215:
214:
213:
212:
211:
205:
203:
201:
197:
193:
192:
183:
180:
176:
173:
170:
166:
163:
160:
156:
153:
149:
146:
142:
139:Reasons given
137:
133:
129:
125:
121:
118:
114:
111:
108:
106:Chief Justice
104:
99:
93:
88:
84:
80:
76:
72:
70:Prior history
68:
64:
62:
58:
55:
52:
48:
41:
37:
36:
30:
25:
20:
592:
588:
572:
568:
559:
554:
546:
542:
534:
530:
522:
518:
510:
506:
494:
483:. Retrieved
465:
455:
443:
434:
418:
414:
398:
392:
381:
373:
365:
364:
355:
353:
341:
336:
331:
322:
303:
300:
292:
285:
268:
263:
255:
244:
240:
234:
230:
209:
190:
189:
188:
150:, joined by
53:
33:
468:. Toronto:
269:ultra vires
246:ultra vires
77:, ExCR 167
609:Categories
485:2013-01-06
407:References
378:Lord Atkin
338:Anglin CJC
324:Mignault J
206:Background
182:Anglin CJC
172:Idington J
162:Mignault J
110:Anglin CJC
152:Rinfret J
61:Citations
583:(Canada)
537:, p. 457
525:, p. 448
429:(Canada)
168:Majority
158:Majority
144:Majority
128:Mignault
120:Idington
575:,
421:,
390:power.
370:Duff CJ
249:of the
178:Dissent
132:Rinfret
90:Holding
476:
350:Impact
306:Duff J
148:Duff J
82:Ruling
595:
310:grain
474:ISBN
130:and
124:Duff
96:be.
611::
472:.
464:.
403:.
346:.
320:.
290:.
253:.
202:.
134:JJ
126:,
122:,
488:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
