| 词条 | Reference Re Alberta Statutes |
| 释义 |
|name = Reference Re Alberta Statutes |court = Judicial Committee of the Privy Council |image = |imagesize = |imagelink = |imagealt = |caption = |full name = Attorney General of Alberta v Attorney General of Canada |date decided = {{Start date|1938|07|14}} |citations = |transcripts = |judges = The Lord Chancellor, Lord Atkin, Lord Thankerton, Lord Russell of Killowen, Lord Macmillan |number of judges = 5 |decision by = The Lord Chancellor |prior actions = |appealed from = {{cite CanLII|litigants=Reference Re Alberta Statutes - The Bank Taxation Act; The Credit of Alberta Regulation Act; and the Accurate News and Information Act|link=|year=1938|court=scc|num=1|format=canlii|pinpoint=|parallelcite=[1938] SCR 100|date=4 March 1938|courtname=auto|juris=}} |appealed to = |subsequent actions = |related actions = |opinions = |keywords = |italic title = }} Reference Re Alberta Statutes,[1] also known as the Alberta Press case and the Alberta Press Act Reference, is a landmark reference of the Supreme Court of Canada where several provincial laws, including one restricting the press, were struck down and the existence of an implied bill of rights protecting civil liberties such as a free press was first proposed. BackgroundThe province of Alberta, under the Social Credit government of William Aberhart had passed several laws as part of a series of reforms inspired by social credit economic theory. Arising from the 1937 Social Credit backbenchers' revolt, the Legislative Assembly of Alberta passed several Acts to implement the Social Credit agenda, to which royal assent was given:
In August 1937, the federal government disallowed all three Acts. The Supreme Court of Canada, in answering reference questions posed by the federal government, unanimously ruled that such disallowance was valid.[5] Following the disallowance, the Alberta legislature passed the following bills in October 1937:
All bills were reserved by Lieutenant-Governor John C. Bowen. As a result, the federal government posed the following reference questions to the Supreme Court as to whether it was intra vires the provincial legislature to pass any of those measures. Reference to the Supreme Court of CanadaAll six members of the Court declared the subject matter of all the bills as ultra vires the province. In addition, the Court ruled 5-0 (Cannon J expressing no opinion) that the Alberta Social Credit Act[6] was unconstitutional as well, as it attempted to intrude on the federal powers relating to currency, banks and banking, and trade and commerce. As to the Accurate News and Information Act, five of the six justices stated that, since the press bill was ancillary to the Alberta Social Credit Act which had been ruled ultra vires, the press bill was automatically as well, while Cannon J considered the subject matter of the bill to be solely under federal jurisdiction. In their concurring opinion for the majority, Duff CJ and Davis J argued that press freedom was too important to be left entirely to the provinces. The three judges argued that the preamble of the British North America Act, 1867, which states that Canada has a constitution similar to that of the United Kingdom, implies that freedom of the press is vital to Canada's democratic system. Appeal to the Privy CouncilThe Board declared that, as the Alberta Social Credit Act had been subsequently repealed by the Alberta legislature,[7] Bills 8 and 9 could not be brought into operation, as their provisions were contingent on actions of the now-abolished Social Credit Board. Therefore, the question was moot, and they expressed no opinion on them. As to Bill 1, the Board agreed with the opinion of Kerwin J (concurred in by Crocket J) that: {{Quotation|The sequence of events after the disallowance of the three Acts is so significant that I can find no escape from the conclusion that, instead of being a taxing enactment, Bill 1 is merely a part of a legislative plan to prevent the operation within the province of those banking institutions which have been called into existence and given the necessary powers to conduct their business by the only proper authority, the Parliament of Canada.[8]}} Accordingly, the bill was in pith and substance a measure to regulate banking, and was thus ultra vires the province. SignificanceThe SCC ruling was one of the foundation cases leading to the recognition of an Implied Bill of Rights in Canadian constitutional law. References1. ^{{cite BAILII|litigants=Attorney General of Alberta v Attorney General of Canada|link=|court=UKPC|year=1938|num=46|para=|format=1|parallelcite=|date=14 July 1938|courtname=P.C.|juris=Canada}} {{DEFAULTSORT:Alberta Statutes Reference}}2. ^SA 1937 (2nd Sess.), c. 1 3. ^SA 1937 (2nd Sess.), c. 2 4. ^SA 1937 (2nd Sess.), c. 5 5. ^{{cite CanLII|litigants=Reference re The Power of the Governor General in Council to Disallow Provincial Legislation and the Power of Reservation of a Lieutenant-Governor of a Province|link=|year=1938|court=scc|num=34|format=canlii|pinpoint=|parallelcite=[1938] SCR 71|date=4 March 1938|courtname=auto|juris=}} 6. ^SA 1937 (1st Sess.), c. 10 7. ^SA 1938, c. 4 8. ^SCC reference, at p. 151 12 : Supreme Court of Canada cases|Judicial Committee of the Privy Council cases on appeal from Canada|Canadian freedom of expression case law|Alberta case law|Canadian federalism case law|Political history of Alberta|1938 in Canadian case law|Supreme Court of Canada reference question cases|Social credit|Banking case law in Canada|Media case law|Monarchy in Canada |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。