Russell v. The Queen
| Russell v R | |
|---|---|
.svg) |
|
| Court | Judicial Committee of the Privy Council |
| Full case name | Charles Russell v The Queen |
| Decided | 23 June 1882 |
| Citation(s) | [1882] UKPC 33, [1882] 7 AC 829 |
| Case history | |
| Appealed from | Supreme Court of New Brunswick |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Sir Barnes Peacock, Sir Montague Smith, Sir Robert P. Collier, Sir James Hannen, Sir Richard Couch |
| Case opinions | |
| Decision by | Sir Montague Smith |
| Keywords | |
| temperance, peace, order and good government, constitutional interpretation | |
Russell v R is a landmark Privy Council decision regarding the interpretation of the Constitution Act, 1867, and was one of the first cases explaining the nature of the peace, order and good government power in Canadian federalism. It expanded upon the jurisprudence that was previously discussed in Citizen's Insurance Co. v. Parsons.
In 1878, the Parliament of Canada passed the Canada Temperance Act which allowed for a province or city to hold a plebiscite on banning the sale of alcohol.Fredericton held such a plebiscite which carried successfully.
In 1880, the Supreme Court of Canada decision in The Queen v Fredericton (Mayor) had held that the law was intra vires under the trade and commerce clause. That decision was not appealed to the Privy Council.
In a separate case two years later, Charles Russell, a local pub owner, was convicted under the CTA of selling alcohol. Russell argued that Parliament cannot delegate its powers to any other part of government. The law could best be characterized as either falling into the provinces power to legislate on matters related to taverns and saloons (section 92(9)), property and civil rights (section 92(13)), or matters of a local or private nature (section 92(16)).
Sir Montague Edward Smith rejected Russell's submissions, saying:
Their Lordships cannot concur in this view. The declared object of Parliament in passing the Act is that there should be uniform legislation in all the provinces respecting the traffic in intoxicating liquors, with a view to promote temperance in the Dominion. Parliament does not treat the promotion of temperance as desirable in one province more than in another, but as desirable everywhere throughout the Dominion.
...
Wikipedia