• Impugned legislation:  Canada Temperance Act, 1878
        -Certiorari; rule nisi
 • ¼ of electors in a “county or city” may petition for a plebiscite on prohibition.
 • Fredericton went dry
 • Charles Russell:  Fredericton pub owner, convicted
 • Previous SCC decision: City of Fr. v. Queen:  intra vires under T&C (91-2)
 • JCPC decision:  Sir Montague Smith.
 • Russell’s lawyer:  delegation argument – Parliament can’t delegate its powers.  Legislation says GG “may” …
 • “cubby hole” doctrine
     • Is subject-matter of impugned legislation in s.92?  If so, is it also in 91?
     • If not in s. 92, it must be in s. 91
 • Russell’s lawyer:  argued legis. Falls in s. 92: 9, 13 or 16
 • “pith and substance”
 • Smith:  Nearly anything could fall under 92(13); what is p&s?
 • Central subject matter is public order & safety, not T&C
 • Not local because of local option.  (analogy:  health orders)
 • Therefore, not under s.92.
 • No comment on SCC’s decision in Fredericton re s. 91(2), but seems to emphasize POGG
 • Gap (residual) branch of POGG
 
 

 • Impugned:  Ont’s Local Prohibition Act (1890)
     • Applies to Townships, towns, villages (& cities)
 • Appeal from SCC reference
 • Lord Watson
 • Feds (under POGG) can trench on s.92 only if incidental to a legit fed purpose
 • otherwise, all of s.92 falls in s. 91.
     • s.94 issue (unify common law in anglophone provs)
 • Ontario argued that legis. falls under 92(8):  (municipalities). Watson: not a convincing argument
 • Pith & sub:  vice of intemperance at local level
 • 92(16):  (local) yes.
 • 92(13): no; the law prohibits rather than regulates
 • if conflict:  fed. law is paramount
 • conflict of laws:  no conflict if strictest obeyed
 • “double aspect” doctrine:  a legislative subject-matter can fall under s. 91 for one purpose, and s. 92 for another.
 • National dimension or national concern doctrine hinted at:  a subject matter can become a matter of national concern and then feds can regulate under POGG.
 

 • Impugned legislation:  fed anti-profiteering & anti-hoarding legis. after WW  I (1919)
 • Board stated case to SCC re Ottawa clothing stores
 • Appeal from SCC:  Duff (BC) vs. Anglin (judges evenly divided)
 • Viscount Haldane for JCPC
 • Pith & substance:  combines & hoarding in peace-time
 • Cubby-hole: 92(13)
 • S. 91 too?:
     • Crim power?  No – not like incest (important decision for those writing about criminal power in writing assignment)
     • T&C: no; T&C is supplemental to other federal powers
     • POGG?  Only in “highly exceptional circumstances” [emergency doctrine]  (see p. 66)
 • Ultra Vires

 • 3 aspects of POGG:  national concern (obiter in Local Prohibition), emergency (B of C), residual (Russell)
 

 • Impugned legislation:  federal Industrial Disputes Investigation Act
 • Viscount Haldane wrote for JCPC
 • Haldane says labour legislation clearly falls under s. 92(13)
 • In this case, the procedure is applied to a municipal transportation agency (TEC, forerunner of TTC, 1923)
 • Does subject-matter also fall under POGG, fed criminal power, or 91(2) (T&C)?  Haldane – no.

 • POGG can be used as residual, or emergency power.  Here, can’t be residual because 92(13) applies.  As well, there’s no emergency.
 • Rule of interpretation:  specific takes precedence over general.  See Haldane’s discussion of specific words, p. 76.
 • How can this decision be squared with Russell v. Queen?  Haldane:  there must have been an emergency in 1878:
         “…evil of intemperance [was] one so great” that parliament intervened to “protect the nation from disaster”