645:, gave the decision for the Judicial Committee. He held that on a leave application there were two questions for the committee to consider. First, did the case raise an issue of sufficient importance to warrant a further appeal? Second, was there a serious and substantial question needing to be determined? He held that the first issue was clearly met. The power of the federal Parliament in relation to elections to the House of Commons was a matter of considerable public importance.
665:
223:
601:
31:
536:, before turning to the issue of court jurisdiction. He concluded that when Parliament conferred jurisdiction over a federal law on the provincial courts, it was in no way interfering with the powers of the provincial legislatures to govern matters within their authority. He also held that the provincial superior courts are courts of general jurisdiction, capable of exercising authority granted by federal laws as well as provincial laws:
510:
609:
162:
425:
565:
with other matters of federal law, such as the criminal law. He did not see any difference between matters of political character, such as elections, and other types of federal laws. Assigning jurisdiction did not in any way infringe on the powers of the provincial legislatures, since they had no jurisdiction over federal elections.
587:
In addition to the main jurisdictional issue, there was also a procedural issue raised by the
Superior Court decision. Valin had filed a cross-petition, accusing Langlois and his agents of corrupt practices. Chief Justice Meredith ruled that there had been a statutory time limit for Valin to file a
500:
Langlois was a lawyer and appeared on his own behalf. He responded that
Parliament can confer jurisdiction on the provincial courts, provided Parliament stays within its legislative authority, such as federal elections. He also argued that Parliament had in fact created a federal court, and that it
672:
With the jurisdictional matters decided by the
Judicial Committee, the election challenge resumed in front of Chief Justice Meredith in the Superior Court of Quebec. At the hearing, Valin admitted that corrupt practices had been committed by his agents, sufficient to void the election. However, he
564:
approached the matter from the scope of the federal
Parliament's power to legislate. He acknowledged that Parliament had sole power to legislate with respect to federal election matters. Parliament therefore had the power to assign the election jurisdiction to the provincial courts, just as it did
540:
These courts are surely bound to execute all laws in force in the
Dominion, whether they are enacted by the Parliament of the Dominion or by the Local Legislatures, respectively. They are not mere local courts for the administration of the local laws passed by the Local Legislatures of the Provinces
673:
asserted that those practices had been committed without his knowledge and without his participation or consent. On that admission, Chief
Justice Meredith ruled that the election of Valin was null and void. He filed his report with the Speaker of the House of Commons, who then issued a writ for a
591:
In a separate decision from the jurisdictional issue, the
Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal relating to the cross-petition. For varying reasons, the Court agreed that there was only a limited time to file a cross-petition against the unsuccessful candidation, and Valin had not met the
578:
focussed on the argument that the issue of election challenges was a political right, rather than a civil right, which could not be assigned to the courts. He rejected that argument, relying on the
British precedents where Parliament had transferred election challenges to the courts, as well as by
496:
On appeal, Valin was represented by Honoré-Cyrias
Pelletier, QC, a lawyer who specialised in controverted elections. Pelletier argued three points: (1) that the structure of the provincial courts was a matter of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, and the federal government could not add to their
552:
wrote reasons in French, which were also published in
English. He wrote that he concurred with the reasons of the Chief Justice. His main point to add was that if Parliament could not confer jurisdiction on the provincial courts to implement federal laws, such as election laws passed under the
400:
In 1873, Parliament enacted a new Act that applied uniformly to federal elections in all provinces, and which repealed the pre-existing provincial laws, to the extent they applied to federal elections. The 1873 Act set up an Election Court in each province, drawing on the judges of the superior
693:
Following the abolition of Canadian appeals to the Judicial Committee, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada directed the Department of Justice to prepare a compilation of all constitutional cases decided by the Judicial Committee on the construction and interpretation of the
571:
held that there was no doubt that Parliament could legislate in the area of federal elections, and therefore could assign jurisdiction over that topic to the provincial courts, just as with other matters of federal jurisdiction, such as the criminal law and bankruptcy.
689:
The Supreme Court continues to cite the case as a foundational case for provincial superior court jurisdiction, particularly in constitutional cases. The case is also cited for this purpose in constitutional law texts, and in analysis of superior court jurisdiction.
541:
in which they are organized. ... They are the Queen's Courts, bound to take cognizance of and execute all laws whether enacted by the Dominion Parliament or the Local Legislatures, provided always, such laws are within the scope of their respective legislative powers.
412:, and repealed the 1873 Act. Unlike the 1873 Act, the 1874 Act did not create special Election Courts. Instead, it assigned the jurisdiction to try election petitions directly to the superior courts of each province. It was the 1874 Act which was challenged in
557:
then there was a significant gap in the constitutional powers of the Parliament. It would lack a way to ensure the execution of federal laws. He concluded that Parliament had the authority to confer jurisdiction over federal law on the provincial courts.
545:
He concluded that whether the federal statute conferred jurisdiction on provincial courts, or constituted the provincial courts to be federal courts for a specific purpose, was immaterial. In either event, the law was within federal jurisdiction.
648:
However, the Committee concluded that the application failed on the second point, as they had no doubt as to the correctness of the decision of the Supreme Court (which Lord Selborne referred to as the "Court of Appeal"). Section 41 of the
368:
as the foundational case with respect to the jurisdiction of provincial superior courts, as well as with regard to Parliament's jurisdiction over federal elections. It is also cited for this purpose in texts on Canadian constitutional law.
1103:
497:
jurisdiction; (2) that the federal government had not created a federal court in the 1874 legislation; (3) that the right to sit in Parliament was a political right, which could not be assigned to the civil courts.
384:
When Canada was created in 1867, the House of Commons initially relied on the pre-Confederation laws from each of the provinces to deal with controverted elections. Those laws followed the precedent of the
474:
Valin raised a preliminary objection, challenging the jurisdiction of the court. He argued that the federal Parliament could not give jurisdiction over federal election matters to the provincial courts.
634:
were counsel for Valin on the application for leave. No-one appeared for Langlois. The Judicial Committee dismissed the application for leave at the conclusion of the hearing on December 13, 1879.
401:
courts of the province to sit in the Election Court. Those courts would have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide election petitions, taking that power away from the House of Commons.
653:
gave the federal Parliament the power to legislate in the area, and that power included the power to confer jurisdiction on the provincial courts to determine disputed federal elections.
307:, concerning the jurisdiction of the federal Parliament over federal elections, as well as the constitutional jurisdiction of the provincial superior courts. The Court held that the
702:), for the assistance of the Canadian Bench and Bar. This case was included in the three volume collection of constitutional decisions of the Judicial Committee.
579:
concluding that the right to stand for election to Parliament was clearly a civil right. The jurisdiction therefore could be assigned to the provincial courts.
315:
have general jurisdiction over questions of federal and provincial law, and that Parliament could give provincial courts jurisdiction to apply federal laws.
532:, who outlined the history of election challenges. He also cited the power of the federal Parliament to govern its own election processes under s. 41 of the
1093:
528:
The five judges who decided the case each wrote their own reasons, as was the Court's practice at that time. The longest set of reasons was given by
448:
440:
390:
323:
779:
617:
346:
175:
1047:
Decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council relating to the British North America Act, 1867 and the Canadian Constitution, 1867–1954
311:
has sole jurisdiction to enact laws regulating federal elections, including provisions for controverted elections. The Court also held that the
588:
cross-petition against the unsuccessful candidate, and he had not done so within that time period. He therefore dismissed the cross-petition.
386:
1098:
989:
642:
246:
624:, including Canada. It could hear appeals from the Supreme Court of Canada, provided the proposed appellant was granted leave to appeal.
262:
860:
1108:
656:
As was the practice of the Judicial Committee at that time, there were no dissenting reasons from other members of the committee.
444:
405:
361:. The Judicial Committee denied leave to appeal, leaving the Supreme Court decision as the governing statement of the law.
436:
479:
of the Superior Court dismissed the objection and held that the court had jurisdiction. Valin then appealed to the
568:
345:
On appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the constitutionality of the law. Valin then tried to appeal to the
130:
784:(Online edition: 2000), Chapter 4: The House of Commons and Its Members — "Dominion Controverted Elections Act".
529:
118:
1058:
464:
335:
463:
was his opponent in 1878. Valin was declared the winner, but Langlois challenged the election result in the
561:
480:
476:
304:
126:
861:"Pelletier, Honoré-Cyrias", Culture et communications Québec: Répertoire du patrimoine culturel du Québec.
105:
Judicial Committee dismissed application for leave to appeal; Superior Court declared seat declared vacant
678:
575:
549:
312:
134:
122:
705:
The Supreme Court has also cited the case as precedent for federal jurisdiction over federal elections.
258:
250:
765:
1072:
975:
460:
459:
was the member for Montmorency from 1867 to 1878, and contested the seat again in the 1878 election.
350:
327:
308:
947:
677:
in Montmorency. Neither Valin nor Langlois stood for election in the by-election, which was won by
871:
522:
961:
832:
815:
664:
600:
30:
936:
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council 1833–1876: Its Origins, Structure and Development
394:
319:
1007:, 5th edition Supplemented (Toronto: Thomson Reuters (looseleaf current to 2021), para. 7.1.
724:
509:
222:
638:
631:
925:, 5th ed., supplemented (Toronto: Thomson Reuters, looseleaf current to 2023), para. 8:2.
909:
501:
was immaterial whether the right be characterised as a political right or a civil right.
204:
330:
was declared the successful candidate, but his election was challenged by his opponent,
627:
621:
358:
254:
608:
1087:
456:
331:
56:
Controverted Election of the County of Montmorency: P.V. Valin and Jean Langlois
674:
452:
166:
The Judicial Committee declined leave to appeal from the Supreme Court of Canada
161:
424:
318:
The case arose from a controverted federal election in 1878, in the Quebec
428:
Jean Langlois, QC, the unsuccessful candidate, who challenged the election
393:
would establish a committee of members of the Commons to hear and decide
517:
The five judges who decided the case unanimously upheld the validity of
404:
The 1873 Act only stayed in force for one year. In 1874, following the
1049:, vol. I (Ottawa: Queen's Printer and Controller of Stationery, 1954).
513:
Chief Justice Ritchie, who wrote the longest decision upholding the Act
292:
Constitutional law; federal elections; jurisdiction of superior courts
873:
Valin v. Langlois (Controverted Election of the County of Montmorency)
794:
620:. At that time, the Judicial Committee was the highest court for the
354:
146:
Constitutional law; federal election law; superior court jurisdiction
1104:
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council cases on appeal from Canada
663:
607:
599:
508:
423:
38:
concerned a disputed election to the Parliament of Canada in 1878
1033:: Old Wine in New Bottles" (2003), 66 Sask. L.R. 63, pp. 82–84.
795:
Norman Ward, "Electoral Corruption and Controverted Elections",
521:. (All six judges of the Court initially heard the appeal, but
604:
Lord Selborne, who gave the decision dismissing leave to appeal
397:. The process was invariably partisan in approach and outcome.
612:
Judah Benjamin, QC, counsel for Valin on the leave application
364:
The Supreme Court of Canada continues to cite its decision in
963:
Attorney General of Canada v Law Society of British Columbia
938:(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), pp. 221–222.
991:
Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Canadian Liberty Net
887:
The Supreme Court of Canada: History of the Institution
1020:, 2nd edition (Toronto: LexisNexis, 2017), para. 4.3.
668:
Chief Justice Meredith, who set aside Valin's election
525:
did not participate in the decision due to illness.)
977:
Canada Labour Relations Board v Paul L'Anglais Inc.
797:
Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science
303:is a Canadian constitutional law decision from the
286:
278:
268:
242:
237:
229:
216:
211:
199:
191:
181:
171:
154:
140:
114:
109:
101:
93:
82:
77:
69:
61:
51:
43:
23:
951:, 4th Parliament, 2nd Session, Vol. 14, pp. 4-6.
889:(Toronto: Osgoode Society, 1985), pp. 4–9, 42.
538:
833:The Dominion Controverted Elections Act, 1874
410:The Dominion Controverted Elections Act, 1874
379:The Dominion Controverted Elections Act, 1874
8:
1041:
1039:
435:arose from a controverted election in the
16:Canadian constitutional law decision – 1879
233:Seat declared vacant by the Superior Court
160:
151:
29:
20:
827:
825:
810:
808:
806:
799:, Vol. 15, No. 1 (Feb., 1949), pp. 74-86.
720:
718:
616:Valin applied for leave to appeal to the
469:Dominion Controverted Elections Act, 1874
340:Dominion Controverted Elections Act, 1874
901:
899:
897:
895:
844:
842:
782:House of Commons Procedure and Practice
714:
618:Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
347:Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
176:Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
97:Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
885:James G. Snell and Frederick Vaughan,
780:Robert Marleau and Camille Montpetit,
761:
759:
451:was located in the rural area outside
757:
755:
753:
751:
749:
747:
745:
743:
741:
739:
389:: following a general election, the
186:Pierre Vincent Valin v Jean Langlois
7:
1062:, [1987] 2 SCR 2, para. 104.
1018:The Law of the Canadian Constitution
816:The Controverted Elections Act, 1873
519:The Controverted Elections Act, 1874
408:, Parliament enacted a new statute,
1060:Ontario (Attorney General) v. OPSEU
849:Langlois v Valin (Montmorency Case)
420:1878 Montmorency election challenge
87:Langlois v Valin (Montmorency Case)
14:
220:Valin v Langlois (1879), 3 SCR 1
1094:Canadian constitutional case law
1045:Richard A. Olmsted, Q.C. (ed.),
1016:Guy RĂ©gimbald and Dwight Newman,
949:Journals of the House of Commons
445:federal general election of 1878
221:
730:British North America Act, 1867
696:British North America Act, 1867
391:Speaker of the House of Commons
728:, s. 41 (originally named the
1:
1099:Canadian federalism case law
1005:Constitutional Law of Canada
1003:Peter Hogg and Wade Wright,
923:Constitutional Law of Canada
921:Peter Hogg and Wade Wright,
685:Significance of the decision
1031:The Queen's Bench Act, 1998
993:, [1998] 1 SCR 626.
979:, [1983] 1 SCR 147.
965:, [1982] 2 SCR 307.
596:Judicial Committee decision
491:
203:(1879-80) 5 App. Cas. 115,
1125:
851:(1879), 5 QLR 1 (Que. SC).
553:authority of s. 41 of the
313:provincial superior courts
1109:1879 in Canadian case law
1076:, [1965] SCR 798.
291:
273:
159:
145:
89:(1879), 5 QLR 1 (Que. SC)
28:
387:British House of Commons
336:Superior Court of Quebec
908:(1879), 5 App.C. 115;
481:Supreme Court of Canada
305:Supreme Court of Canada
47:Supreme Court of Canada
726:Constitution Act, 1867
700:Constitution Act, 1867
669:
651:Constitution Act, 1867
613:
605:
555:Constitution Act, 1867
543:
534:Constitution Act, 1867
514:
487:Supreme Court decision
477:Chief Justice Meredith
429:
274:Leave to appeal denied
667:
611:
603:
530:Chief Justice Ritchie
512:
492:Counsel's submissions
465:Quebec Superior Court
427:
406:1874 federal election
263:Sir Robert P. Collier
259:Sir Montague E. Smith
251:Sir James W. Colville
505:Reasons of the Court
461:Pierre-Vincent Valin
351:court of last resort
328:Pierre-Vincent Valin
309:Parliament of Canada
679:Auguste-RĂ©al Angers
583:Procedural decision
349:, at that time the
1074:McKay v. The Queen
836:, SC 1874, c. 10.
819:, SC 1873, c. 28.
670:
614:
606:
569:Justice Taschereau
515:
430:
395:election petitions
255:Sir Barnes Peacock
102:Subsequent actions
875:(1879), 3 SCR 90.
296:
295:
230:Subsequent action
195:December 13, 1879
150:
149:
1116:
1078:
1070:
1064:
1056:
1050:
1043:
1034:
1027:
1021:
1014:
1008:
1001:
995:
987:
981:
973:
967:
959:
953:
945:
939:
932:
926:
919:
913:
906:Valin v Langlois
903:
890:
883:
877:
869:
863:
858:
852:
846:
837:
829:
820:
812:
801:
792:
786:
777:
771:
769:(1879), 3 SCR 1.
767:Valin v Langlois
763:
734:
722:
550:Justice Fournier
447:. The riding of
433:Valin v Langlois
414:Valin v Langlois
366:Valin v Langlois
300:Valin v Langlois
238:Court membership
225:
164:
155:Valin v Langlois
152:
110:Court membership
65:October 28, 1879
36:Valin v Langlois
33:
24:Valin v Langlois
21:
1124:
1123:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1071:
1067:
1057:
1053:
1044:
1037:
1028:
1024:
1015:
1011:
1002:
998:
988:
984:
974:
970:
960:
956:
946:
942:
933:
929:
920:
916:
904:
893:
884:
880:
870:
866:
859:
855:
847:
840:
830:
823:
813:
804:
793:
789:
778:
774:
764:
737:
723:
716:
711:
687:
662:
639:Lord Chancellor
632:Gainsford Bruce
598:
585:
507:
494:
489:
422:
382:
375:
261:
257:
253:
249:
167:
133:
129:
125:
121:
73:(1879), 3 SCR 1
39:
17:
12:
11:
5:
1122:
1120:
1112:
1111:
1106:
1101:
1096:
1086:
1085:
1080:
1079:
1065:
1051:
1035:
1029:J.T. Irvine, "
1022:
1009:
996:
982:
968:
954:
940:
927:
914:
891:
878:
864:
853:
838:
821:
802:
787:
772:
735:
713:
712:
710:
707:
686:
683:
661:
658:
628:Judah Benjamin
622:British Empire
597:
594:
584:
581:
576:Justice Gwynne
523:Justice Strong
506:
503:
493:
490:
488:
485:
421:
418:
381:
376:
374:
371:
359:British Empire
294:
293:
289:
288:
284:
283:
282:Lord Selbourne
280:
276:
275:
271:
270:
266:
265:
244:
243:Judges sitting
240:
239:
235:
234:
231:
227:
226:
218:
214:
213:
209:
208:
201:
197:
196:
193:
189:
188:
183:
182:Full case name
179:
178:
173:
169:
168:
165:
157:
156:
148:
147:
143:
142:
138:
137:
116:
115:Judges sitting
112:
111:
107:
106:
103:
99:
98:
95:
91:
90:
84:
80:
79:
75:
74:
71:
67:
66:
63:
59:
58:
53:
52:Full case name
49:
48:
45:
41:
40:
34:
26:
25:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1121:
1110:
1107:
1105:
1102:
1100:
1097:
1095:
1092:
1091:
1089:
1077:
1075:
1069:
1066:
1063:
1061:
1055:
1052:
1048:
1042:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1026:
1023:
1019:
1013:
1010:
1006:
1000:
997:
994:
992:
986:
983:
980:
978:
972:
969:
966:
964:
958:
955:
952:
950:
944:
941:
937:
934:P.A. Howell,
931:
928:
924:
918:
915:
911:
907:
902:
900:
898:
896:
892:
888:
882:
879:
876:
874:
868:
865:
862:
857:
854:
850:
845:
843:
839:
835:
834:
828:
826:
822:
818:
817:
811:
809:
807:
803:
800:
798:
791:
788:
785:
783:
776:
773:
770:
768:
762:
760:
758:
756:
754:
752:
750:
748:
746:
744:
742:
740:
736:
733:
731:
727:
721:
719:
715:
708:
706:
703:
701:
697:
691:
684:
682:
680:
676:
666:
660:Final outcome
659:
657:
654:
652:
646:
644:
643:Lord Selborne
640:
635:
633:
629:
625:
623:
619:
610:
602:
595:
593:
589:
582:
580:
577:
573:
570:
566:
563:
562:Justice Henry
559:
556:
551:
547:
542:
537:
535:
531:
526:
524:
520:
511:
504:
502:
498:
486:
484:
482:
478:
472:
470:
466:
462:
458:
457:Jean Langlois
454:
450:
446:
442:
438:
434:
426:
419:
417:
415:
411:
407:
402:
398:
396:
392:
388:
380:
377:
372:
370:
367:
362:
360:
356:
352:
348:
343:
341:
337:
333:
332:Jean Langlois
329:
325:
321:
316:
314:
310:
306:
302:
301:
290:
285:
281:
277:
272:
269:Case opinions
267:
264:
260:
256:
252:
248:
247:Lord Selborne
245:
241:
236:
232:
228:
224:
219:
217:Appealed from
215:
210:
206:
202:
198:
194:
190:
187:
184:
180:
177:
174:
170:
163:
158:
153:
144:
139:
136:
132:
128:
124:
120:
117:
113:
108:
104:
100:
96:
92:
88:
85:
83:Appealed from
81:
76:
72:
68:
64:
60:
57:
54:
50:
46:
42:
37:
32:
27:
22:
19:
1073:
1068:
1059:
1054:
1046:
1030:
1025:
1017:
1012:
1004:
999:
990:
985:
976:
971:
962:
957:
948:
943:
935:
930:
922:
917:
905:
886:
881:
872:
867:
856:
848:
831:
814:
796:
790:
781:
775:
766:
729:
725:
704:
699:
695:
692:
688:
671:
655:
650:
647:
636:
626:
615:
590:
586:
574:
567:
560:
554:
548:
544:
539:
533:
527:
518:
516:
499:
495:
473:
468:
432:
431:
413:
409:
403:
399:
383:
378:
365:
363:
344:
339:
317:
299:
298:
297:
212:Case history
185:
119:Ritchie C.J.
86:
78:Case history
55:
35:
18:
675:by-election
592:timelimit.
453:Quebec City
449:Montmorency
441:Montmorency
357:within the
324:Montmorency
279:Decision by
94:Appealed to
1088:Categories
709:References
630:, QC, and
467:under the
373:Background
338:under the
131:Taschereau
698:(now the
443:, in the
334:, in the
70:Citations
287:Keywords
200:Citation
141:Keywords
123:Fournier
910:UKPC 68
205:UKPC 68
192:Decided
62:Decided
437:riding
355:Canada
320:riding
135:Gwynne
172:Court
127:Henry
44:Court
637:The
353:for
207:(PC)
439:of
326:.
322:of
1090::
1038:^
894:^
841:^
824:^
805:^
738:^
732:).
717:^
681:.
641:,
483:.
471:.
455:.
416:.
342:.
912:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
