FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 2,733 times | Saved to 370 briefcases
Hodge v The Queen (Canada) [1883] UKPC 59

Facts:

H charged with permitting billiards to be played in his tavern. F charged with operating tavern without any license at all. Argued that the province legislature could not delegate law-making powers to the Boards of Commissioners.

Issue(s):

Does the Act conflict with the Dominion power over trade and commerce?
Can the Province delegate its authority?

Ratio:

Subjects which in one aspect and for one purpose fall w/in s.92, may in another aspect and for another purpose fall w/n s.91 – this is called Double Aspect Doctrine

Analysis:

The province is not a delegate – they have the same authority as the Imperial Parliament.

Since it was decided that the Act does fall w/in the power of the province – then s.92(15) punishment by fine, penalty, or imprisonment, is applicable.
*It is not in conflict with s.91(27)

Holding:

Province had power to make Act


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.