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.
