244 DIVISION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER.

Enforce.
ment of
Temperance

Laws.

This limited power of criminal jurisdiction does not
authorize a provincial Legislature to enforce a law of the
province, made in relation to matters within the exclusive
jurisdiction of a provincial Legislature, by declaring acts to
be offences which are criminal offences at common law.
When therefore the Ontario Legislature provided that
tampering with a witness in the case of prosecutions under
the Liquor License Act should involve a penalty, the
Ontario Court of Queen’s Bench held the proviso ultra
vires, inasmuch as tampering with a witness was an offence
at common law’. In this case an attempt was made, similar
to that in English cases?, to distinguish between acts that
are offences, viz. those punishable by magistrates, and acts
that are crimes, viz. those punishable on indictment, and it
was suggested that the former were within the jurisdiction
of the local Legislatures; but the decision was ultimately
based on the principle that the act in question was a crime
by common law and therefore not within provincial jurisdiction.

The validity of clauses in provincial laws relating to
temperance has been questioned.
In some cases® it has been held that the method adopted
for enforcing the Act in question was ultra vires. and in other
cases that it was valid*.
A provincial law forbidding the compromise of offences
against a law regulating tavern and shop licenses, and
enacting that any party to such a compromise should on
conviction be liable to imprisonment, was held not to be
ultra wires®

1 R. v. Lawrence, 43 U. C. Q. B, 164."
2 Bee remarks of Martin B. in 4. G. v. Radloff, 10 Ex. p. 96,
5 R.v. Prittie, 42 U. C. Q. B. 612; 2 Cart. 606; R. v. Lake, 43 U. C. Q.
B. 515; 2 Cart. 616.
4 License Commissioners of Prince Edward v. County of Prince Edward,
0. 26 Grant, 452; 2 Cart. 678.
5 Regina v. Boardman. 30 U. C, Q. B. 553: 1 Cart. 676.