Responsible government in the Dominions: Responsible government in the Dominions

Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 2)

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:: 1896935052

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-238139

Document type:: Volume

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

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Volume count:: Vol. 2

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Pr.

Year of publication:: 1912

Scope:: XI Seiten, Seiten 570-1100

Digitisation:: 2022

Collection:: Economics Books

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

Chapter

Document type:: Multivolume work

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: Part IV. The federations and the union // Chapter I. The dominion of Canada

Collection:: Economics Books

CHAP. 1] THE DOMINION OF CANADA 663 of the Lieutenant-Governor a corporation sole, and allowing him to appoint deputies, were ultra vires, and the same fate befell a Quebec Act on the same subject (49 & 50 Vict. c. 98). In 1889 a discussion was carried on on this topic between Sir J. Thompson and Mr. Oliver Mowat, Attorney-General of Ontario, regarding the validity of the Ontario Act (51 Vict. ¢. 5) regarding the executive authority in the Province. He thought the whole Act conflicted with the British North America Act, s. 92 (1), and he particularly objected to the assumption of pardoning powers over provincial offences. Mr. Mowat totally dissented, and argued that the legislature could not merely alter or abolish the powers (which Sir J. Thompson admitted), but could add to them, and he remarked that the remission of penalties had already by law (48 Vict. c. 13, s. 16 (3)) been entrusted to the Lieutenant-Governor2 It was afterwards agreed to take the matter before the Courts, and it was so taken, and the validity of the Act was upheld both in the Ontario Supreme Court? the Court of Appeal! and in the Supreme Court of Canada,’ but the grounds were in the main that as the Act purported only to legislate so far as the legislature had authority—a phrase frequently ¢ adopted to render valid doubtful Acts—it might well be valid, without determining whether every power claimed in it was actually valid. Accordingly a Quebec Act of 1889 (c. 12) on the same head was left in operation,” a Manitoba Act of 1890 (c. 15),° and a New Brunswick Act of 1889 (c. 7)? were allowed to stand, and since then the provinces all include in their Revised Statutes, or Acts respecting the office of Lieutenant-Governor, analogous stipulations. The matter was discussed again in connexion with a British Columbia Act, 62 Vict. ¢. 16, which ! Provincial Legislation, 1867-95, pp. 314, 338, 2 Ibid., pp. 206-10. 3 Attorney-General of Canada v. Attorney-General of Ontario. 20 0. R. 222. ‘190. A. R. 3L $93 S.C. R. 458. Gwynne J. (at p. 475) dissented and held the Act ultra vires as an alteration of the position of Lieutenant-Governor forbidden by 5. 92 (1). ¢ Cf. Boyd C., in 20 O. R. 222, at p. 246. ! Provincial Legislation, 1887-95, p. 432. ® Thid., p. 929. ' Ihid., p. 752. 1° Thid.. 1899-1900. p. 133.

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 2)

Multivolume work

Volume

Chapter

Table of contents

Download

Volume

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation