91 & 92: Economic Regulation (91(2), 92(13) POGG, labour rel’ns) Ch. 5 – Ref re: Board of Commerce– 91(2) ltd, POGG = national crisis F: Objective of fed leg’n = to restrict: (1) combines, monopolies, and mergers; (2) taking unfair profits or hoarding to increase prices. General in scope covering entire Cdn economy. In partic BoC had powes to make an order setting “whether profit margins for clothing prices in Ottawa.” SCC Anglin CJC: uphold on conception of 91(2) general reg of economy/business affecting entirety of Canada. Monopolies etc widespread and evil enough to need the fed regulation. Provinces couldn’t do it on their own. See later in Grain Elevators for comment on this notion. Also POGG (though hits 91(13) it = an aspect that is not because of above beliefs. Duff J (dissenting) provincial. – Re: s.91(2) powers cannot regulate the terms of a particular business/contracts. this is the domain of provinces under 92(13) Re: Anglin’s above view: If it interferes with the contracts in one type of business and is invalid in that one realm (clothes), how can the aggregation of interferences validate it? (Takes the same view if Grain Elevators) sort of rejects Parsons here. Re: the above + POGG: can’t just frame it as something for scope’ of ‘general Only operation and/or effect of leg’n, NOT the goal, matters for Duff. to limit gov’ts ability to extend their scope! Haldane JCPC – -Federal jurisdiction over general economic regulation was highly limited after this case. -Feds argue: NOT parliament trying to regulate a particular business, but it seeks to regulate the Canadian economy generally.
91 & 92: Economic Regulation (91(2), 92(13) POGG, labour rel’ns) – Ch. 5 Ref re: Board of Commerce– 91(2) ltd, POGG = national crisis F: Objective of fed leg’n = to restrict: (1) combines, monopolies, and mergers; (2) taking unfair profits or hoarding to increase prices. General in scope covering entire Cdn economy. In partic “whether BoC had powes to make an order setting profit margins for clothing prices in Ottawa.” SCC Anglin CJC: uphold on conception of 91(2) general reg of economy/business affecting entirety of Canada. Monopolies etc widespread and evil enough to need the fed regulation. Provinces couldn’t do it on their own. See later in Grain Elevators for comment on this notion. Also POGG (though hits 91(13) it = an aspect that is not because of above beliefs. Duff J (dissenting) – provincial. Re: s.91(2) powers cannot regulate the terms of a particular business/contracts. this is the domain of provinces under 92(13) Re: Anglin’s above view: If it interferes with the contracts in one type of business and is invalid in that one realm (clothes), how can the aggregation of interferences validate it? (Takes the same view if Grain Elevators) sort of rejects Parsons here. Re: the above + POGG: can’t just frame it as something for ‘general scope’ of Only operation and/or effect of leg’n, NOT the goal, matters for Duff. to limit gov’ts ability to extend their scope! Haldane – JCPC -Federal jurisdiction over general economic regulation was highly limited after this case. -Feds argue: NOT parliament trying to regulate a particular business, but it seeks to regulate the Canadian economy generally.
Elliot_54_Fall_2010_Martina_Zanettie.docx