Ontario (AG) v Canada Temperance Federation

Ontario (AG) v Canada Temperance Federation^[1] was a famous Canadian constitutional decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and was among the first cases to examine the peace, order, and good government power of the Constitution Act, 1867. It was the first decision to bring back the "national concerns" branch of peace, order and good government since it was first suggested in the Local Prohibitions case.

In June 1939, the Ontario government posed the following reference question to the Court of Appeal of Ontario:

Are Parts I, II and III of the Canada Temperance Act^[2] constitutionally valid in whole or in part, and if in part, in what respect?

In presenting its case, Ontario argued:

1. While the Act had been declared valid in Russell v. The Queen, Viscount Haldane had commented in the later case of Toronto Electric Commissioners v. Snider that Russell could be supported now only on the ground that it was dealing with a matter that was "a menace to the national life of Canada" at that time (an emergency).
2. When the revised Act was enacted in 1927, having been originally enacted in 1878 and revised in 1886, there were no circumstances that enabled the Parliament of Canada to legislate anew.

In September 1939, the majority of the Court of Appeal (Riddell, Fisher, McTague and Gillanders JJA) gave the following answer:

This Court is of opinion (Mr Justice Henderson dissenting) that Parts I, II and III of the Canada Temperance Act... are within the legislative competence of the Parliament of Canada.

Ontario appealed the ruling to the Privy Council.

The ruling was upheld by the Board. As to the arguments raised by Ontario,

1. While the Board was not bound by its previous decisions, it noted that nowhere in the British North America Act is it mentioned that the peace, order and good government power can be invoked only in cases of emergency. It also noted that Snider did not explicitly state that Russell was wrongly decided, and Haldane's explanation was "too narrowly expressed." In addition, Russell had become a significant foundation for subsequent jurisprudence not only at the Board but also in the House of Lords.
2. Once it was decided that the 1878 Act was valid, any subsequent Act replacing it through consolidating subsequent amending Acts must be equally valid.

枢密院を代表してサイモン子爵は、平和、秩序、良き統治に関する連邦政府の権限は「国家的な関心事」のために発動できると示唆した。

裁判官らの見解では、真の判断基準は立法の真の主題にあるべきである。もしそれが地方や州の関心事や利益を超え、その本質からして連邦全体の関心事であるならば（例えば、航空事件やラジオ事件のように）、それはカナダの平和、秩序、良き統治に影響を与える問題として連邦議会の権限の範囲内に入る。ただし、別の側面では、州議会に特別に留保されている事項に触れる可能性がある。

これが「国家次元」テストの基礎となった。

その後の多くの判決は、この事件とラッセル事件との整合性を図るのに苦慮し、「平和、秩序、良き統治」の本質について矛盾した解釈を与えているように見える。サイモンは明示的に述べてはいないものの、この判決は事実上ラッセル判決を覆した。

「国家の懸念」テストはその後、Johannesson v. West St. Paul、Munro v. National Capital Commission、およびR. v. Crown Zellerbachで適用され、詳細に説明されました。

• 枢密院司法委員会の事件一覧
• カナダ発の枢密院司法委員会事件一覧
• オンタリオ州禁酒法

• JCPCの判決全文はBAILIIおよびCanLIIで閲覧可能