IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

^
'^

«;

1.0

I.I

Iri^ IIIIIM
S ^ IIIIIM

!!: 1^ 12.0

1-25 1.4 1 1.6

/l"

^ —

Photographic

Sciences
Corporation

23 WEST MAIN STREET

WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580

(716) 872-4503

U.x

CIHM
Microfiche
Series
(l\/lonographs)

ICMH

Collection de
microfiches
(monographies)

Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques

. "Ji.-MsM. I

Technical and Bibliographic Notes / Notes techniques et bibliographiques

The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original
copy available for filming. Features of this copy which
may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any
of the images in the reproduction, or which may
significantly change the usual method of filming, ara
checked below.

'j Coloured covers/
Couverture de couleur

Covers damaged/
Couverture endommag^

Covers restored and/or laminated/
Couverture restauree et/ou pelliculde

□ Cover title missing/
Le

titre de couverture manque

Coloured maps/

Caites geographiques en couleur

Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/
Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire)

Coloured plates and/or illustrations/
Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur

Bound with other material/
Relie avec d'autres documents

Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion
along interior margin/
La reliure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la
distorsion le long de la marge interieure

□ Blank leaves added during restord'iion may appear
within the text. Whenever possible, these have
been omitted from filming/
II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajouties
lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte,
mais, lorsque cela etait possible, ces pages n'ont
pas ete f ilmees.

Additional comments:/
Commentaires supplementaires:

This Item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/

Ce document est filme au taux de reduction indique ^ a.ssous.

10X

14X

18X

12X

16X

20X

L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il
lui a et* possible de se procurer. Las details de cet
exemplaire qui sont peut-6tre uniques du po^nt de vua
bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une '.Tiage
reproduite. ou qui peuvent exiger une modification
dans la methode normale de filmage sont indiques
ci-dessous.

□ Coloured pages/
Pages de couleur

□ Pages damaged/
Pages endomrnagees

□ Pages restored and/or laminated/
Pages restaurees et/ou pellicul6es

Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/
Pages decolorees, tach?iees ou piquees

□ Pages detached/
Pages detachecs

0Showthrough/
Transparence

□ Quality of rrint varies/
Qualite inegale de ('imp

mpression

Continuous pagination/
Pagination continue

□ Inclu
Comi

des index (es)/
Comprend un (dei) index

Title on header taken from:/
Le titre de I'en-tite provient:

ifraison

□ Title page of irsue/
Page de titre de la livr

□ Caption of issue/
Titre de depart de la livraison

□ Masthead/
Genefique (periodiques) ae la livraison

22X

?6X

303

24 X

28X

32 X

qu'il

cet

de voe
ie

ition
ues

The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks
to the generosity of:

INSational Library of Canada

The images appearing here are the best quality
possible considering the condition and legibility
of the original copy and in i<eeping with the
filming contract specifications.

Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed
beginning with the front cover and ending on
the last page with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All
other original copies are filmed beginning on the
first page with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, and ending on the last page with a printed
or illustrated impression.

The last recorded frame on each microfiche
shall contain the symbol — »- (meaning "COIM-
TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "EIMD"),
whichever applies.

Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at
different reduction ratios Those too large to be
entirely included in one exposure are filmed
beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to
right and top to bottom, as many frames as
required. The following diagrams illustrate the
method:

L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grfice d la
gdndrosit^ de:

Bibliothdque nationale du Canada

Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec Ie
plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et
de la nettei6 de l'exemplaire film6, et en
conformity avec les conditions du contrat de
filmage.

Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en
papier est imprim6e sont film6s en commen^ant
par Ie premier plat et en terminant soit par la
derni6re page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par Ie second
plat, selon Ie cas. Tous les autres exemplaires
originaux sont film6s en commen^ant par la
premidre page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par
la dernidre page qui compoite une telle
empreinte.

Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la
dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon Ie
cas: Ie symbole — ► signifie "A SUIVRE", Ie
symbole V signifie "FIN".

Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent §tre
filmds d des taux de reduction diffdrents.
Lorsque Ie document est trop grand pour Stre
reproduit en un seul clich6, il est film6 d partir
de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite,
et de haut en bas, en prenant Ie nombre
d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants
illustreni: la m^thode.

32 X

'r..., -"^

■"' ''^ V;, .'-Httr.r.iuj/^^AAjL.

'HODGE V. THE OUEEN

JJUDSMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

OK rnK

I'Kivv ('(H'xr'ii.

ON IHK

Appeal of Hodge v. The Queen from the Court of Appeal of

Ontario, Canada.

l»i;iJ\KHKI» ir.TH DKCK.MUKI}. isK'i.

PHIXTED BY '(JHIP" PUBLISHING CO., 2(i \ Js FRONT ST.

1884. ^

&^^JJ8

HODGE V. THE QUEEN.

JDDGMENT OP THE lOEDS OF THE JDDICIAl COMMITTEE

Of THR

PRIVY COUiVCIL

ON THB

Appeal of mge v. Tke «.«„ ^„„ ,,, ,„„^, „^ ^^^^^^ ^^

Ontario, Canada.

DELIVERED 15TH DECEMBER, 1883.

tovonto :

PRINTED BY ..ORIP.. PUBLISHING CO., 26 * .« proNT ST.

1884.

HODGE V. THE QUEEN.

JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE- JUDICIAL
COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL

ON THK

Appeal of Hodge y. The Queen from the Court of Appeal of
Ontwrio, Canada, delivered \5th December, 1883.

PBE8EKT--Lord Fitzgerald, Sir Barnes Peacock, Sir Robert P
Collier, Sir Richard Couch, Sir Arthur Hobhouse.

THE CASE

aaS'e^Tlw ^fl^^^ f ^^«' '^^ P™r etorof a tavern known

ot May, 1881, was the holder of a license for the retail of spirituous
hquo.. in his tavern, and also licensed to keep a billiard sail Z
summoned before the police magistrate of Toronto for a breac7oir
resolutions of the License Commissioners of Toronto, anTwa eo„

trate had authority in law to make it. *^

The conviction is as follows, viz.:—

" CONVICTION.

to wft'°- ' '' ^''""' '' ^°*'"'' ^'"^*^ °^ ^°'^' City of Ton,nto,

"Be it remembered, that on the 19th day of May, in the year of

t11 ":.*'r"'"^'' ""^•^"^ "°^ eighty-on' atthectyof
Toronto, m the County of York. Archibald G. Hodg;. of the Ul
city, ,s convicted before me, George Taylor Denison, l^aire PoTce
Magistrate m and for the said city of Toronto, for ht^he.^het^I

Archibald (1. Hodge, being u person who, after the passing of the
lieHoiution hereinafter mentioned, received, and who, at the time oi'
the committing of the oflence hereinafter mentioned, helil a license
under the Liquor License Act, for and in reHpect of the tavetn known
as the St. James' Hotel, situate on York street, witiiin the city of
Toronto, on the seventh day of May in the aforesaid year, at the
said city of Toronto, did unlawfully permit, allow, and sutfor a
billiard table tp be used, and a game of billiards to bo played thereon
in the said tavern, during the time prohibited by the Liquor License
Act for the sale of liquor therein, to wit, after the hour of seven
o'clock at night on the said seventh day of May, being Saturday,
against the form of the Kosohition of the License Commissioners for
the city of Toronto for regulating taverns and shops, passed on the
25th day of April, in the year aforesaid, in such case made and
provided.

"Thomas Dexter, of laid city. License Inspector of the city of
Toronto, being the complainant.

" And I adjudge the said Archibald G. Hodge, for his said offence,
to forfeit and pay the sum of twenty dollars, to be paid and applied
according to law ; and also to pay to the said Thomas Dexter the sum
of two dollars and eighty-five cents for his costs in this behalf;
and if the siid several sums be not i)aid forthwith, then I order that
the same be levied by distress and sale of goods and chattels of the said
Archibald G. Hodge ; and in default of sufficient distress, I adjudge
the said Archibald G. Hodge to be imprisoned in the common gaol
of the said city of Toronto and County of York, and there be kept
at hard labour for the space of fifteen days, unless the said sums, and
the costs and charges of conveying of the said Archibald G. Hodge
to the said gaol, shall be sooner paid."

BEFORE THE QUEEN's BEKCH.

On the 27th May, 1881, a rule nisi was obtained to remove that
conviction into the Court of Queen's Bench for Ontario, in
order that it should be quashed as illegal, on the grounds : —
1st, that the said resolution of the said License Commissioners
is illegal and unauthorized ; 2nd, that the said License Com-
missioners had no authority to pass the resolution prohibiting
the game of billiards, as in the said resolution, nor had they
power to authorize the imposition of a fine, or, in default of pay-
ment thereof, imprisonment for a violation of the said resolution ;
3rd, the Liquor License Act, under which the said Commissioners

ng of the
lie time of
i a license
rn known
ho city of
ar, at the
1 sutfor a
id thereon
ar License
T of seven
Saturday,
iioners for
jed on the
made and

be city of

id offence,
id applied
3r the 8um
is behalf;
order that
of the said
I adjudge
amon gaol
re be kept
sums, and
G. Hodge

move that
atario, in
rounds : —
missioners
nse Com-
rohibiting
had they
It of pay-
ssolution ;
iiissioners

have assumed to pass the Baid resolution, is l.oyond the anthoritv
ot the Legislature of Ontario, and does not authorize the said resohi-
tion.

It will be observed that the question whether the Local Legisla-
ture could confer authority on the License Commissioners to make
the resolution in .,ue8tion is not .lirectly raised by the rule nisi On
the 27tli June, 1881, that ule was made absolute and an order
pronounced by the Court of Queen's Bench to .luasl. the conviction
The judgment of the Court, which seems to have been unanimous
was delivered by Hagarty, C.J., with elaborate reasons, but finally il
will b. found that the decision of the Court rests on one ground
alone, ami does not profess to decide the .,uestion which on this
appeal was princip lly discussed before their Lonlsl.ips. The Chief
Justice, in the course of his judgment, says :—

"It was stated to us that the parties desired to present directlv
to the Court the very important .piestion whether the Local Legisla-
ture, assuming that it had the power themselves to make these regu-
lations and create these ottences, and annex penalties for their infrac
tion, could delegate such powers to a Board of Commissioners or any
other authority outside their own legislative body."
And, again, he adds :—

"We are thus brought in face of a very serious question, viz. the
power of the Onta.io Legislature to vest in tlie License Board the
power of creating new offences and annexing penalties for their com-
mission."

And concludes his judgment thus, referring to the msolutions .—
Ihe Lep.>i..iure has not enacted any of these, but has merely
authorized ea.h Board in its discretion to make them.

"It seems very difficult, in our judgment, to hold that the Confed-

. eration Act gxves any such power of delegating authority, first of

^reating a >juad offence, and then of punishing it by fine or imprison-

" We think it is a power that must be exercised by the Legisla-
ture alone. • °

" In all these questions of ultra vire^ the powers of our Legislature
wo consider it our wisest course not to widen the discussion by con'
siderations not necessarily involved in the decision of the point in
controversy.

"We, therefore, enter into no general consideration of the powers
of the Legislature to legislate on the subject; but, assuming this
nght so to do, we feel constrained to hold that they cannot devolve

or delegate thege pwoifl to the diHcretion of a local board of oommiH-
Nioners.

" We think the defendant has the ripht to say that ho has no'
oJFondeii aj^ainst any law of the Province, and that the convictionH
cannot be supported."

IN THE rOUKT OK APPKAK.

The case was taken from the (Queen's Bench on appeal to the
Court of Apj)eal for Ontario, under the Ontario Act, 44 Vic, ch. 27,
and on the 30th Juno, 1882, that Court reversed the decision of the
Queen's Bench, and affirmed the conviction.

Two questions only appear to have been discussed in the Court of
Appeal, Ist, that the Legislature of Ontario had not authority io enact
such regulations as were enacted by the Board of Commissioners, and
to create offences and annex penalties for their infraction ; and, 2nd,
that if the Legislature had such authority, it could not delegate it to
to the Board of Commissioners, or any other authority outside their
own legislative body.

This second ground was that on which the judgment of the Court
of Queen's Bench rested.

The judgments delivered in the Court of Appeal by Spragi?e, C.J.,
and Burton, J. A., are able and elaborate, and were adopted by Pat-
terson and Morrison, JJ 's, and their Lordships have derived consid-
erable aid from a Odreful consideration of the reasons given in both
Courts.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL TO THE PRIVY COUNCIL.

The appellant now seeks to reverse the decision of the Court of
Appeal, both on the two grounds on which the case was discussed in
that Court and on others technical, but substantial, and which were
urged before this Board with zciil and ability. The main questions
arise on an Act of tl)e Legislature cf Ontario, and on what have been
called the resolutions ol the License Commissioners.

SECTIONS OF THE ONTARIO ACT DIRECTLY IN QUESTION.

The Act in question is chapter 181 of the Revised Statutes of On-
tario, 1877, and is cited "as the Liquor License Act."

Sec. 3 of this Act provides for the appointment of a Board of
License Commissioners for each city, county, union of counties, or
electoral district as the Lieutenant-Governor may think fit, and sees.
4 and 5 are as follows : —

" Sec. 4. License Commissioners may, at any time before the first
day in each year, pass a resolution, or resolutions, for regulating and
diitermining the matters following, that is to say :—

tXyt,

" (1) For defining thn conditiona and (jualificationB requisite to
obtain tavern licenHoa for tlie retail, within the municipality, of
M|iirituouH, fermented, or other maaufacturod liquom, and also shop
licenseH for the sale by retail, within the municipality, of such li(|Uor8
in shops or places other than taverns, inns, alehouses, beerhouses, or
places of public entertainment.

"(2) For limiting the number of avem and shop licenses respoc-
tively, and for defining the respective times and localities within
which, and the pei-sons to whom, such limited number may be issued
within the year from the first day of May on one year till the thir-
tieth day of April inclusive of the next year.

"(3) For declaring that in cities a number not exceeding ten
jxM-sons, and in towns a number not exceeding four persons, qualified
to have a tavern license, may be exempted from the iiocessity of
having all the tavern accommodatio)» required by law.

" (4) For regulating the taverns and shops to be licensed.

" (5) For fixing and defining the duties, powers and privileges of
the Inspector of Licenses of their district.

" Sec. 0. In and by any such resolution of a Board of License
Commissioners the said Board may impose penalties for the infraction
thereof.

Sec. 43 prohibits the sale of intoxicating liquoi-s from or after
the hour of seven of the clock on Saturday till six of the clock on
Monday morning thereafter.

Sec. 51 imposes on any person who sells spirituous liquors withoiit
the license by law required, or otherwise violates any other provision
of the Act, in respect of which violation no other punishment is pre-
scribed, for the first offence a i)enalty of not loss than twenty dollars
and not more than fifty dollars, besides costs, and for the second
offence imprisonment with hard labour for a period not exceeding
three calendar months.

Sec. 52. For punishment of offences against sec. 43 (requiring
taverns, etc., to be closed from seven o'clock on Saturday night until
six o'clock on Monduy morning), a penalty for the first offence of not
less than twenty dollars with coats, or fifteen days' imprisonment with
hard labour, and with increasing penalties for second, third and
fourth offences ; and Sec. 70 provides that where the resolution of
the License Commissioners imposes a penalty it may be recovered
and enforced before a magistrate in the manner and to the extent
that by-laws of municipal corjioratio^s may be enforced under the
authority of the Municipal Act

License Commissionera were duly appointed under this statute,
who, on 25th April, 1881, in pursuance of its provisions, made the
resolution or regulation now questioned in relation to licensed taverns
or shops in the city of Toronto, which contains (inter alia) the fol-
lowing paragraphs, viz.: —

" Nor shall any such licensed person, directly or 'indirectly as
aforesaid, permit, allow, or suffer any bowling alley, billiard or baga-
telle table to be used, ov any games or amusements of the like
description to be played in such tavern or shop, or in or upon any
premises connected therewith, during the time prohibited by the
Liquor License Act or by this resolution, /or the sale of liquor
therein.

"Any person or persons guilty of any infraction of any of the pr.v
visions of this resolution shall, upon conviction thereof before the
Police Magistrate of the city of Toronto, forfeit and pay a penalty ot
twenty dollars and costs ; and in default of payment thereof forthwith
the said Police Magistrate shall issue his warrant to levy the said
penalty by distress and sale of the goods and chattels of the offender-
and m default of sufficient distress in that behalf, the said Police
Magistrate shall by warrant commit the offender to the common gaol
of the city of Toronto, with or without hard labour, for the period of
fifteen days, unless the said penalty and costs and all costs of distress
and commitment, be sooner paid."

The appellant was the holder of a retail license for his tavern, and

had signed an undertaking as follows :

" We, the undersigned holders of licenses for faverns and shops iu
the city of Toronto respectively acknowledge that we have severally
and respectively received a copy of the resolution of the License •
Commissioners of the city of Toronto to regulate taverns and shops
passed on the 25th day of April last, hereunto annexed, upon the
several dates set opposite to our respective signatures hereunder
written, and we severally and respectively promise, undertake and
agree to observe and perform the conditions and provisions of such
resolution,

''2nd May, Tavern. ^. c. Hodge, (l.s.)"

He was also holder of a billiard license for the city of Toronto to

keep a billiard saloon with one table for the year 1881, and, under

it, had a billiard table in his tavern.

He did permit this billiard table to be used as such within the

period prohibited by the resolution of the License Commissioners

and It was for that infraction of their rules he was prosecuted and

convicted.

REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENTS.

The preceding statement of the facts is sufficient to enahle their
Lordships to determine the questions raised on the appeal

Mr Kerr, Q.C. and Mr. Jeune, in their full and very able argu-
ment for the -appellant, informed their Lordships that the first and

^r,"r/.' i'^"''*'°" '" *^' '^"'' ^"^ ^^^'^'' " The Liquor License Act
of 877. m Its fourth and fifth sections, was ultra vires of the
Ontano Legislature, and properly said that is was a matter of im-
portance as between the Dominion Parliament and the Legislature
01 the Province. .

Their Lordships do not think it necessary in the present case to
ky down any general rule or rules for the construction of the British
North America Act. They are impressed with the justice of an
observation by Ha iy. C. J., " that in all these questions of ultra
vtres It IS the wisest course not to widen the discussion by considera-
ations not necessarily involved in the decision of the point in con-
troversy." They do not forget that in a previous decision on this
same statute (Parsons v. The Citizens Company) their Lordships
recommended that, "in performing the difficult duty of determining,
such questions, it will be a wise course for those on whom it il
thrown to decide each case which arises as best they can, without
entering more largely upon the interpretation of the statute than i*.
necessary for the decision of the particular question in hand."

RUSSELL V. REGINA.

The appellant contended that the Legislature of Ontario bad no.
power to pass any Act to regulate the liquor traffic ; that the whole
power to pass such an Act was conferred on the Dominion Parha
ment and consequently taken from the Provincial Legislatnre. bv
sec. 91 of the British North America Act, 1867 ; and that it did nJt
come withm any of the classes of subjects assigned exclusively to the
Prbvmcial Legislatures by sec. 92. The clause in sec. 91 which the
Liquor License Act, 1877, was said to infringe was No 2 "The
Regulation of Trade and Commerce," and it was urged that the
decision of this Board in Russell v. Regina was conclusive-that the
who G subject of the liquor traffic was given to the Dominion Pariia-
ment, and consequently taken away from the Provincial Legislature
It appears to their Lordships, however, that the decision of thia
tribunal in that case has not the effect supposed, and that when
properly considered, it should be taken rather as an authority iu
support of the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

The solo question there was, whether it was competent to the
Dominion Parliament, under its general powers to make laws for the-
peace, order and good government of the Dominion, to pass the
Canada Temperance Act, 1878, which was intended to be applicable
to the several Provinces of the Dominion, or to such parts of the
Provinces as should locally adopt it. It was not doubted that the
Dominion Parliament had such authority under sec. 91, unless the
subject fell within some one or more of the classes of subjects which
by sec. 92 were assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the
Provinces.

It was in that case contended that tl^ subject of th • Temperance
Act properly belonged to No. 13 of sec. 92, " Property and Civil
Rights in the Province," which it was said belonged exclusively to
the Provincial Legislature, and it was on what seems to be a mis-
application of some of the reasons of this Board in observing on that
contention that the appellant's counsel principally relied. These
observations should be interpreted according to the subject matter to
which they were intended to apply.

Their Lordships, in +hat case, after comparing the Temperance
Act with laws relating to the sale of poisons, observed that : —

" Laws of this nature designed for the promotion of public order,
safety or morals, and which subject those who contravene them to
criminal procedure and punishment, belong to the subject of public
wrongs rather than to to that of civil rights. They are of a nature
which fall within the general authority of Parliament to make laws
for the order and good government of Canada."

And again : —

" What Parliament is dealing with in legislation of this kind is
not a matter in relation to property and its rights, but one relating
to public order and safety. That is the primary matter dealt with,
and though incidentally the free use of things in which men may
have property is interfered with, that incidental interference does
not alter the character of the law."

And their Lordships reasons on that part of the case are thus
concluded :

" The true nature and character of the legislation in the particular
instance under discussion must always be determined, in order to
ascertain the class of subject to which it really belongs. In the
present case it appears to their Lordships, for the reasons already
given, that the matter of the Act in q!ia°,tion does not properly

belong to the class of subjects ' Property and Civil Rights ' within
the meaning of subsection 13."

It appears to their Lordships that Russell v. the Queen, when
properly understood, is not an authority in support of the appellant's
contention, and their Lordships do not intend to vary or depart from
the reasons expressed for their judgment in that case. The principle
which that case and the case of the Citizens' Insurance Company
illustrates is, that subjects which in one aspect and for one purpose
fall withm sec. 92, may, in another aspect and for another purpose,
fall within sec. 91. r r .

THE ONTARIO LAW.

Their Lordships proceed now to consider the subject matter and
legislative character of sees. 4 and 5 of " The Liquor License Act of
1877, cap. 181, Revised Statutes of Ontario." That Act is so far
confined in its operation to municipalities in the Province of Ontario,
and is entirely local in its character and operation. It authorizes the
appointment of License Commissioners to act in each municipality,
and empowers them to pass, under the name of resolutions, what we'
know as by-laws, or rules to define the conditions and qualifications
requisite for obtaining tavern or shop licenses for sale bv retail of
spirituous liquors within the municipality; for limiting the number
of licenses; for declaring that a limited number of persons qualified
to have tavern licenses may be exempted from having all the tavern
accommodation required by law, and for regulating licensed taverns
and shops, for definijig the duties and powers of license inspectors,
and to impose penalties for infraction of their resolutions. These
seem to be all matters of a merely local nature in the Province, and
to be similar to, though not identical in all respects with, the powers
then belonging to municipal imstitutions under the previously exist-
ing laws passed by the local parliaments.

Their Lordships consider that the powers intended to be conferred
by the Act in question, when properly understood, are to make
regulations in the nature of police or municipal regulations of a merely
local character for the good government of taverns, &c., licensed for
the sale of liquors by retail, and such as are calculated to preserve, in
the municipality, peace and public decency, and repress drunkenness
and disorderly and riotious conduct. As such they cannot be said to
interfere with the general regulation of trade and commerce which
belongs to the Dominion Parliament, and do not conflict with the
provisions of the Canada Temperance Act, which does not appear t<»
havu as yet been locally adopted.

THE ONTARIO ACT WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL AND LOCAL POWERS
ASSIGNED TO PROVINCES.

The subjects of legislation in the Ontario Act of 1877, sees. 4 and
T), seem to come within the heads Nos, 8, 15, and 16 of Sec. 92 of
British North America Statute, 1867.*

Their Lordships are, therefore, of opinion that, in relation to sees.
4 and 5 of the Act in question, the Legislature of Ontario acted
within the powers conferred on it by the Imperial Act of 1867, and
that in this respect there is no conflict with the powers of the
Dominion Parliament.

Assuming that the Local Legislature had power to legislate to the
full extent of the resolutions passed by the License Commissioners,
and to have enforced the observance of their enactments by penalties
and imprisonment with or without hard labour, it was further con-
tended that the Imperial Parliament had conferred ro authority on
the Local Legislature to delegate those powers to the License Com-
missioners or any other persons. In other words, that the power
conferred by the Imperial Parliament on the Local Legislature should
be exercised in full by that body, and by that body alone. The maxiuii
delegatus non protest delegare was relied on.

POWERS OF THE PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURES AMPLE AND PLENARY.

It appears to their Lordships, however, that the objection thus-
raised by the Appellants is founded on an entire misconception of
the true character and position of the Provincial Legislatures. They
are in no sense delegates of or acting under any mandate from the
Imperial Parliament. When the British North America Act enacted
that there should be a Legislature for Ontario, and that its Legis-
lative Assembly should have exclusive authority to make laws for
the Province and for Provincial purposes in relation to the matters
enumerated in Sec. 92, it conferred powers not in any sense to he
exercised by delegation from or as agents of the Imperial Parliament,
but authority as plenary and as ample within the limits prescribed by

.1. *T?»T** following are the heada Nos. 8, 15 and 16 referred to as they appear in
the B.N. A. Act under section 02 :—

Section ,%— In eacih Province the Legislature may exchisively make laws in
relation to matters commg within the classes of subjects next hereinafter enumer-
ated, tnat IS to say :

Sub-head 8.— Municipal institutions in the Province.

sub-head 1.5.— The imposition of punishment by fine, penalty or imprisonment
for enforcing any law of the Province made in relation to any matter coming
within any of the classes of subjects enumerated in this section.

bub-head 16.— Generally all matters of a merely local or private nature in the
Province. . " "^

Sec. 92 as the Imperial Parliament in the plenitude of its power
possessed and could bestow. Within these liniitK of subjects and
.area the Local Legislature is supreme, and has the same authority as
.the Imperial Parliament, or the Parliament of the Dominion, would
ihave had under like circumstances to confide to a municipal institu-
»tion or body of its own creation authority to make by-laws or resolu-
itions as to subjects specified in the enactment, and with the object of
'CaiTyinj^ the enactment into operation and effect.

It is obvious that such an authority is ancillary to legislation, and
without it an attempt to provide for varying details aud machinery
.to carry them out might become oppressive, or absolutely fail. The
very full and very ekborate judgment of the Court of Appeal contains
a'bundance of precedents for this legislation entrusting a limited dis-
cretionary authority to others, and has many illustrations of its
necessity and convenience. It was argued at the bar that a Legis-
lature committing important regulations to agents or delegates effaces
itself. That is not so. It retains its powers intact, and can, whenever
it pleases, destroy the agency it has created and set up another, or
itake the matter directly into its own hands. How far it shall seek
ithe aid of subordinate agencies, and how long it shall continue them,
.are matters for each Legislature, and not for courts of law to decide.

Their Lordships do not think it necessary to pursue this subject
'further, save to add that, if by-laws or resolutions are warranted,
.power to enforce them seemsi necessary and equally lawful. Their
Lordships have now disposed of the real questions in the cause.

LICENSED COMMISSIONERS AND HARD LABOUR.

Many other objections were raised on the part of the appellants
ns to the mode in which the License Commis.sioner8 exercised the
authority conferred on them, some of which do not appear to have
been raised in the Court below, and others were disposed of in the
■ course of the argument, their Lordships being clearly of opinion that
the resolutions were merely in the nature of municipal or police
regulations in relation to licensed houses, and interfering with liberty
of action to the extent only that was necessary to prevent disorder
and the abuses of liquor licenses. But it was contended that the
Provincial Legislature had no power to impose imprisonment or hard
labour for breach of newly created rules or by-laws, and could confer
no authority to do so. The argument was principally directed
against hard labour. It is not unworthy of observation that this
point, as to the power to impose hard labour, was not raised on the

rule nisi for the certiorari nor is if ir^ \.^ *• j
fc„ If .. 1 ' ""''°' "'"•' ""^ 8e.=eral terms, " .he imno

^"h° SZ'27™™™"' '°^™^°-"'" -^ '-." ""-

ineir J^oidships that there is imported an authority to add in th

powers to Ihe Liceme Com,ras„„„er8, and that therefore the Resoh,

e V of T '" T " °°* "'" '°"'"''''^- I" "■« «-' P'»-. Iv
„™ „■ wu r" ^""'"' '*°'' "« C°""nis»ioners may imw^e
penalfe. Whether the word " [«n.lt, •• u well adapted tTtaXe
.".pn^onment may he ,,„estio„ed, but in thia Aet it in ,e „ "d f„
»ec. 2 ,mp„,es „„ „ffe„de« against the provision, of se ♦'/
penalty of twenty dollars or fifteen daya^ imprisonment, and for ,
■Calt T' " """"' "' taprUonment with harf 1 bo„ only

Penalty here seems to be nsed in its wider sense as equivalent to

penalt e» ,s dealt with, the Aet speaks of " penalties in money "Be
suppos,ng hat the " penalty " is to be conflned to pecuniary la.tS
those pe„alt,es may, by Sec, 70, be «.cvered and e„f„L7i„ he
manner, and to the extent, that by-law. of munieip,,! co, neil mav
.- L: r.';""""/"' Tf-'J °f '*« Muniei,,.l let. The wo:d

recover -« an apt word for pecuniary remedies, and the word " en- '
lorce for remedies against the person.
■ Turning to the Municipal Act, we find that, by Sec. 4.54 muni-

cipal council, may pass by-laws for inflicting reasonable tines an.l

punishment by imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for the

breach of any by-laws in case the fine cannot be recovered. By

Seot,onB 400 to 402 it is provided that fines and penalties may be

recovered and enforced by summary conviction before a justice of the

peace, and that where the prosecution is for an offence against a

municipal by-law the justice may award the whole or such part of the

penalty or punishment imposed by the by-law as he thinks lit ; and

that If there is no distress found out of which a pecuniary penalty

can be levied, the justice may commit the offender to prison for the

term or some part thei^of, specified in the by-law. If these by-laws

are to be enforced at all by fine or imprisonment, it is necessary that

they should specify some amount of fine and some term of

imprisonment.

The Liquor License Act then gives tu the Commissioners either
power to impose a penalty against the person directly, or power to
impose a money penalty, which, when imposed, may be enforced
according to sections 454 and 400-2 of the Municipal Act. In e th ^
case, the Municipal Act must be read to find the manner of enforcing

ptr\?^' ' , " '''*'"* *' ''^''^ '' "^^y b« «"*°rced. The most
reasonable way of construing statutes so framed is to read into the
later one the passages of the former which are referred to. So read-
ing these two statutes, the Commissioners have the same power of
enforcing the penalties they impose as the Councils have of enforcing

Ir tv oTr^^^ P-'^^*- ^»--t the person

directly oi only indirect y as the means of enforcing money penalties.

iti dfe to^^^^^^ their resolution must, in order to give the magistrate
jurisdiction, specify the amonnt of punishment. In either case their
resolution now under discussion is altogether within the powers con-
ferred upon them. ^

Their Lordships do not think it necessary or useful to advert to

hrtrT'-'""''/! ^'""'"'°' '"^^ ^^«' «" *h« -J^«l«' of opinion
that the decision of the Court of Appeal of Ontario should be affirmed,
^d this app .al dismissed, with costs, and will so humbly advise He;

en-