R. v. Eastern Terminal Elevator Co.
| R v Eastern Terminal Elevator Co | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Hearing: 9–10 March 1925 Judgment: 5 May 1925 |
|
| Full case name | The King v. Eastern Terminal Elevator Co. |
| Citations | 1925 CanLII 82 (SCC) , [1925] SCR 434 |
| Prior history | APPEAL from the judgment of the Exchequer Court of Canada, [1924] ExCR 167 |
| Ruling | Judgment of the Exchequer Court affirmed. |
| Holding | |
| It is not within the power of Parliament to regulate in the provinces particular occupations by a licensing system and otherwise, and of local works and undertakings, as such, however important and beneficial the ultimate purpose of the legislation may be. | |
| Court Membership | |
| Chief Justice | Anglin CJC |
| Puisne Justices | Idington, Duff, Mignault and Rinfret JJ |
| Reasons given | |
| Majority | Duff J, joined by Rinfret J |
| Majority | Mignault J |
| Majority | Idington J |
| Dissent | Anglin CJC |
R v Eastern Terminal Elevator Co is an early constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the Constitution's Trade and Commerce power.
The Canada Grain Act was passed in 1912 to control and regulate, through The Board of Grain Commissioners, the trade in grain. It provided for:
The Act was amended in 1919 by adding s. 95(7) which provided that, if at the end of any crop year in any terminal elevator "the total surplus of grain is found in excess of one-quarter of one per cent of the gross amount of the grain received in the elevator during the crop year," such surplus would be sold for the benefit of the Board.
For the 1920 crop year, Eastern Elevator was determined to have a surplus of 1,107,330 pounds, found in its elevator at Port Arthur, Ontario. The Board commenced an action in the Exchequer Court of Canada to recover the value of such grain, which was calculated to be $43,431. Eastern Elevator, in its defence, pleaded there was no surplus, and that s. 95(7), as well as The Canada Grain Act itself, always were and are now ultra vires of the Parliament of Canada.
Alexander Kenneth Maclean, President of the Exchequer Court, confined his ruling to the effect of s. 95(7) only, determining it to be ultra vires. In stating this, he ruled that:
both of which fell within the provincial jurisdiction over property and civil rights.
The ruling was appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Exchequer Court's ruling was affirmed.
In his ruling, Duff J held that the marketing of grain, even though it was all destined for export (some of the grain stored on the site was for local markets), fell under provincial jurisdiction with respect to property and civil rights. However, the Parliament of Canada could still assume jurisdiction if it invoked its power with respect to works and undertakings.
Mignault J, in his ruling, also rejected the idea that the matter could be regarded as a "national emergency" under the residual peace, order and good government power. He also rejected the federal contention that s. 95(7) could be supported under s. 95 of the British North America Act, as it dealt not with agriculture but with a product of agriculture, and therefore was an article of trade.
...
Wikipedia