Responsible government in the Dominions: Responsible government in the Dominions

Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 1)

Bibliographic data

Multivolume work

Identifikator:: 1896933912

Document type:: Multivolume work

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Press

Year of publication:: 1912-

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Volume

Identifikator:: 1896934455

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-236504

Document type:: Volume

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Volume count:: Vol. 1

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Pr.

Year of publication:: 1912

Scope:: LI, 568 Seiten

Digitisation:: 2022

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Chapter

Document type:: Multivolume work

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: Part III. The Parliaments of the Dominions

Collection:: Economics Books

cuap. 111] REPUGNANCY OF COLONTAL LAWS 413 sidered apparently that it is hardly an authority for anything except the danger of quoting judgements of inferior Courts on points of law. In the British Columbia case of Tai Sing v. Maguire} Gray J. emphatically rejected the dictum of Draper C. J., and pointed out that the word ‘exclusive’ was clearly a word dividing power between the Dominion and provinces. So in ex parte Worms? it was said by Dorion C. J.: ‘The Act of 1870 (as to extradition) is not inconsistent with s. 132 of the British North America Act of 1867, and if it were the last Act would prevail.” In Regina v. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario the Ontario Court of Queen’s Bench held that the Imperial Medical Act of 1868 applied to Canada, and gave a British medical practitioner a right to be registered in Ontario. It was there very neatly but ineffectually argued that as educa- tion was an exclusive power of the provinces the Imperial Act of 1868 must be read as not intended to interfere with the exclusive power, and so must not be held to exclude the Ontario authorities from requiring the applicant to pass an examination as a condition of registration.t The question as to repugnancy of Colonial legislation has also been discussed in special connexion with the law of copyright in Canada. When the question was brought to a head in 1889 the Canadian Government and their advisers did not deny the power of the Imperial Parliament to legislate regarding copy- right for the whole Empire. Thus they did not deny that the Imperial Act of 1886 (49 & 50 Vict. c. 33), which was applied by the Order in Council of 1887 to Canada, was binding upon Canada. They contended, however, from a constitutional point of view, that such legislation should be passed by Canada and not by the Imperial Parliament, hut there was no * (1878) 1 B. C. (Irving), at p. 107. ? (1876) 22 L., C. J. 109, at p. 111; 2 Cart., at p. 315. (1879) 44 TU, C. Q. B. 564 ; 1 Cart. 761. Ci. below, p. 666, n. 4 Cf. also Metherell v. The Medical Council of British Columbia, (1892) 2B. C. (Cassidy), at p. 189. The Imperial Act of 1886 (49 & 50 Vict. c. 48) modifies the law as to registration and only requires reciprocity, no longer giving a British decree Imperial validity ps0 facto.

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 1)

Multivolume work

Volume

Chapter

Table of contents

Download

Volume

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation