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
