Edwards v. Canada (Attorney General)

Edwards v Canada (AG)
William Lyon Mackenzie King unveiling a plaque to the Valiant Five of the Persons Case
Court	Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
Decided	October 18, 1929
Citation(s)	[1930] A.C. 124, 1929 UKPC 86.
Case history
Prior action(s)	Reference re Meaning of the Word "Persons" in s. 24 of the BNA Act, [1928] S.C.R. 276
Appealed from	Supreme Court of Canada
Court membership
Judges sitting	Lord Sankey, L.C. Lord Darling Lord Merrivale Lord Tomlin Sir Lancelot Sanderson
Case opinions
Decision by	Lord Sankey

Edwards v Canada (AG)—also known as the Persons Case—is a famous Canadian constitutional case that decided that women were eligible to sit in the Canadian Senate. The case, put forward by the Government of Canada on the lobbying of a group of women known as the Famous Five, began as a reference case in the Supreme Court of Canada, which ruled that women were not "qualified persons" and thus ineligible to sit in the Senate. The case then went to the Judicial Committee of the Imperial Privy Council, at that time the court of last resort for Canada within the British Empire and Commonwealth. The Judicial Committee overturned the Supreme Court's decision.

The Persons Case was a landmark case in two respects. First, it established that Canadian women were eligible to be appointed senators. Second, it established what came to be known as the "living tree doctrine", which is a doctrine of constitutional interpretation that says that a constitution is organic and must be read in a broad and liberal manner so as to adapt it to changing times.

In 1916, Emily Murphy, a well-known activist for women's rights, and a group of other women attempted to attend a trial of Alberta women accused of prostitution. She, and the rest of the group of women, were ejected from the trial on the grounds that the testimony was "not fit for mixed company." Emily Murphy was outraged and appealed to Charles Wilson Cross, the Attorney General of Alberta, arguing "If the evidence is not fit to be heard in mixed company, then ... the government.. [must] set up a special court presided over by women, to try other women." Much to her surprise, the minister not only agreed, but appointed her as the magistrate. However, on her first day on the job, her authority to preside as a judge was challenged by a lawyer on the basis that women were not considered to be "persons" under the British North America Act. In 1917, the Supreme Court of Alberta ruled that women were persons. Sometime later, Emily Murphy decided to test the issue in the rest of Canada by allowing her name to be put forward to Robert Borden, the Canadian Prime Minister, as a candidate for Canadian Senator. He rejected her on the grounds that women were not "persons". In response to a petition signed by nearly 500,000 Canadians that asked that she be appointed to the Senate, Borden stated that he was willing to do so, but could not on the basis of an 1876 British common law ruling that stated that "women were eligible for pains and penalties, but not rights and privileges."