Spread the love


In his ruling, Lord Fitzgerald held that the province had the authority to delegate any of its residual powers under section 92(16). Fitzgerald examined the pith and substance of the law that delegated the power to the commission. It was noted 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… and such as are calculated to preserve, in the municipality, peace and public decency, and repress drunkenness and disorderly and riotous conduct. The Act, however, also touched on powers that were exclusively in the authority of the federal government, as had been recently determined in Russell v. The Queen. Fitzgerald distinguished that fact with what is now the doctrine of double aspect: “subjects which in one aspect and for one purpose fall within sect. 92, may in another aspect and for another purpose fall within sect. 91.”Consequently, when a law has some overlapping characteristics between the two heads of power, it may still be valid.

Hey there, you’re welcome once again to (short for Answer my Questions) blog, you can type the name of any case you’re looking for in the search box below or above as we’ve made summary of many cases available. have a nice time.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

+ 68 = 70