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 721 stance local or provincial! The Dominion Parliament tannot make a provincial subject its own by legislating for several provinces. Instances of the use of the general bower may be seen in the Act 31 Vict. c. 76, authorizing the examination by any Court in the Dominion of witnesses Or parties in relation to civil or commercial matters pending before British or foreign tribunals.2 and the Temperance Act, 1878, Provincial Legislatures are all (save where the Constitution Acts specially provide) on the same footing as regards authority? and have no powers save those expressly given in the Act of 1867.4 One essential characteristic of Provincial Legislatures is their local limitation to matters in the province. In the Goodhue cases it was held by Strong V.C. that as the Pro- vincial Legislature could only affect such property when in its jurisdiction and since some of the grandchildren of testator were domiciled in England, the Legislature could not bar the rights of these grandchildren, as the property was notionally in England. For this doctrine there can be no reasonable defence. There can be no doubt that the Legislature can regulate whatever is physically in Ontario, or what is recover- able there (e.g. a debt), and cases which merely assert that laws are not to be interpreted e.g. to levy a duty in case of deaths of persons domiciled elsewhere (as in the case of the British legacy duty) unless it is expressly so stated, have ho relevance to the issue.® Doubt is of course possible as to whether any given asset is in the province, as in the case of shares in a bank outside? Otherwise the power to Y Aitorney-General Jor Ontario v. Attorney-General Jor the Dominion, [1896] A.C 348; Lefroy, pp. 314 seq. ; Canada Sess. Pap., 1884, No. 30, p. 27. * (1872) 16 L. C, J. 140. * Lefroy, pp. 705-9. * Lefroy, pp. 710 seq. * 19 Gr. 366. * See the discussion in Lovitt v. The King, (1909) 43 8. C. R. 106, and cf. Winans v, Attorney-General (No. 2), [1910] A. C. 27; Jones v. The Canada Central Railway Co., (1881) 46 U. C. Q. B. 250 (where it was held that the Ontario Legislature could deal with a company, though bonds of it were nwned in England, and were not domiciled in the province within s, 92 (13)). " Cf. Nickle v. Douglas. 35 U. C. Q. B. 126; 37 U. C. 0. B. 51. 1279-2 wr

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