1946 (1) TMI 11 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved: Constitutional validity of Parts I, II, and III of the Canada Temperance Act, 1927; applicability of the decision in Russell v. Reg. [1882] 7 A.C. 829; legislative competence of the Dominion Parliament versus Provincial Legislatures.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutional Validity of the Canada Temperance Act, 1927:

The central question referred to the Supreme Court of Ontario was whether Parts I, II, and III of the Canada Temperance Act, 1927, were constitutionally valid. The Supreme Court, by a majority, affirmed that these parts were within the legislative competence of the Parliament of Canada. This decision was challenged by the Attorney-General for Ontario and the Moderation League of Ontario, supported by the Attorneys-General of Alberta and New Brunswick. The appeal was opposed by the Attorney-General of Canada and several Temperance Federations.

2. Applicability of the Decision in Russell v. Reg. [1882] 7 A.C. 829:

The appellants sought to challenge the decision in Russell v. Reg. or deny its applicability to the current Act. The Supreme Court majority held that Russell's case governed the present case, obliging it to affirm the constitutional validity of the Act. The material provisions of the 1927 Act were identical to those of the 1878 Act, which had been previously upheld as valid.

3. Legislative Competence of the Dominion Parliament:

The 1878 Act authorized a system of local option regarding the sale of intoxicating liquor, with elaborate provisions for bringing the Act into force within any county or city, prohibiting liquor sales in those areas, and prescribing penalties for breaches. The constitutional validity of the 1878 Act was upheld in Russell's case on the grounds that it related to the peace, order, and good government of Canada, a decision that had stood unreversed for 63 years and had received express approval in subsequent cases.

4. Argument of Emergency Legislation:

The appellants relied on the comments made in Toronto Electric Commissioners v. Snider [1925] A.C. 396, suggesting that Russell's case could only be supported if the evil of intemperance was so great and general that it was a menace to the national life of Canada. However, the Board found no evidence that the 1882 decision was based on an emergency. Instead, the true test was whether the subject matter of the legislation went beyond local or provincial concern and was inherently a concern of the Dominion as a whole.

5. Re-enactment and Validity of the 1927 Act:

The appellants contended that the 1927 Act was new legislation and that circumstances in 1927 did not support its enactment, especially given provincial legislation regulating liquor traffic. The Board disagreed, stating that if the 1878 Act was constitutionally valid, the 1927 Act, which replaced and consolidated it, must also be valid. The ability to legislate for prevention was seen as equivalent to legislating for cure.

Conclusion:

The Board concluded that Russell v. Reg. was not wrongly decided and remained a binding authority. The 1927 Act, being a replacement and consolidation of the 1878 Act, was equally valid. The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.