FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 2,600 times | Saved to 278 briefcases
Attorney General for Ontario v Attorney General for the Dominion, and the Distillers and Brewers’ Association of Ontario, [1896] A.C. 348 (J.C.P.C.)

Facts:

Political pressure to prohibit sale of liquor

Issue(s):

Did the Province have authority to enact the provision (18)?

Ratio:

If a subject matter is broadly defined, it can have provincial and federal aspects (double aspect doctrine); if this happens, paramountcy is an issue

Analysis:

Fed argues POGG:
*There is limit on its use as it touches matter of provincial jurisdiction
**Can only rely on POGG for matters for national dimensions
**Can not use POGG where prov has power to leg

Arguments that ON could have enacted the provision:
1. s.92(8) to create municipal institutions – this simply just gives them the right to create a legal body for the management of municipal affairs
2. s.92(9) shops, saloon, tavern, in order to raise revenue – held in Hodge that cannot be construed as authorizing the abolition of the sources from which revenue is to be raised
3. s.93(13) and (16), property and civil rights, and generally all matters of a merely local or private nature.

Have a valid fed law and valid prov law covering the same thing – but is there a conflict?
*Fed can use POGG, Prov s.92(13) and (16)
*Both schemes are not of mandatory blanket – so both schemes will not be in affect at the same time

Holding:

Prov could enact the legislation

Comments:

Put limits on POGG power


Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to participate.

This document is a general discussion of certain legal and related issues and must not be relied upon as legal advice. This document may not have been written or reviewed by a legal practitioner. For more information, please see the website Terms of Service.