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 711 liability for injuries to their employees! It was argued on behalf of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company that this was essentially a matter to be governed by provincial legislation, but it was held by both Courts that the legislation was within the power of the Dominion, which alone could make a law for the whole Dominion, and that it was both reasonable and convenient that the Dominion Parliament should have such power, thus preventing difference of treatment according to the locality in which an accident to an employee took place. Another instance of the same question is afforded by the case of the Toronto Corporation v. Canadian Pacific Railway Company? Under the Railway Act of Canada, the Railway Committee of the Privy Council was empowered to require, where it thought fit, that crossings should be protected either by gates or by the building of bridges and so forth, and it was also enacted that the Dominion could apportion between the railway company and other persons interested the cost of such protection. Accordingly the Railway Committee did apportion the cost between the railway company and the Corporation of Toronto, and the corporation protested on the ground that it had no authority to make payments save under the Provincial Acts regulating it. But it was held both by the Supreme Court of Canada? and by the Privy Council that the power given by the Dominion Act was intra vires and was effective, even if the municipality was not physically adjacent to the railway. Subsection 10 (c) of s. 92 gives the Dominion power to legislate with regard to such works as, though wholly situate within the province, are before or after their execution declared to be for the general advantage of Canada or for t Grand Trunk Railway Co. v. Attornen-General of Canada. [1907] A.C. 65. * [1908] A. C. 54. * The City of Toronto v. Grand Trunk Railway Co, 378. C. R. 232; cf. 25 0. A. R. 65. * The City of Carleton v. The County of Ottawa, 41 8. C. R. 552. On the power of Canada to take over provincial railways under s. 92 (10). see Lefroy, op. cit., pp. 603-5.

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