CHAP. I] THE DOMINION OF CANADA 699
(0) Administration of Justice and Criminal Law
The control of the Dominion over criminal law is so
complete that an Ontario Act to prevent the profanation of
the Lord’s Day was held to be ultra wires the Provincial
Legislature! The Dominion has legislated on the subject,
and on a reference regarding the legislative power on the
whole question, the Supreme Court decided in accordance
with that ruling as to the powers of the provinces, though
protesting against such a general reference on hypothetical
matters?
In I’ Association St. Jean-Baptiste de Montréal v. Brault®
the question arose of the power of the Provincial Legislature
to allow the operation of lotteries forbidden by the criminal
statutes of Canada, and the Court (Girouard J. dissenting)
held that a contract in common law for the operation of
a lottery forbidden by the criminal statutes of the Dominion
was unlawful and could not be enforced in a court of
justice. It is not a breach of the criminal law for a
province to punish by imprisonment for default on a judge-
ment debt ; 4 but a charge against a man of selling intoxi-
cating liquors on Sunday is so far of a criminal character
that a defendant could not be compelled to give evidence
against himself5 If an offence is a crime in criminal law,
the province has no authority to make provision for its trial
and punishment : e.g. tampering with a witness cannot be
punished by a Provincial Act. the Liquor Licence Act of
in Provincial Legislation, 1867-95, p. 214. Cf. Reg. v. Gold Commassioners
of Victoria District, 2 B. C. (Irving) 260.
' Attorney-General for Ontario v Hamilton Street Railway. [19031 A. C. 524.
* 358. C.R. 581.
* (1900) 80 8. C. R. 598, Cf. Sir J. Thompson in Provincial Legislation.
1867-95, p. 461.
* Bx parte Ellis, 1 P. and B. 593; 2 Cart. 527.
* Reg. v. Roddy, 41 U. C. Q. B.291; 1 Cart. 709. Lefroy, op. cit., pp.
467, 468, thinks that this case is overruled by Weiser v. Heintzman (No. 2),
(1893) 15 0. P. R. 407, where it was held that the Act, 56 Vict. c. 31, s. 5,
which forbade the excusing of persons from answering questions on ground
of tendency to criminate applied only to criminal proceedings under
Canadian Taw
