| 词条 | Toronto Electric Commissioners v Snider |
| 释义 |
|name = Toronto Electric Commissioners v Snider |court =Judicial Committee of the Privy Council |image = |imagesize = |imagelink = |imagealt = |caption = |full name = The Toronto Electric Commissioners v Colin G Snider and others |date decided = 20 January 1925 |citations = [1925] UKPC 2, [1925] AC 396 (P.C.) |transcripts = |judges = Viscount Haldane, Lord Dunedin, Lord Atkinson, Lord Wrenbury, Lord Salvesen |number of judges = 5 |decision by =Viscount Haldane |prior actions = Toronto Electric Commissioners v. Snider, 55 O.L.R. 454 |appealed from = Ontario Court of Appeal |appealed to = |subsequent actions = |related actions = |opinions = |keywords = Canadian federalism, Labour relations, Property and civil rights |italic title = }} Toronto Electric Commissioners v Snider[1] is a famous Canadian constitutional decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council where the Council struck down the federal Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, precursor to the Canada Labour Code. The Court identified matters in relation to labour to be within the exclusive competence of the province in the property and civil rights power under section 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867. This decision is considered one of the high-water marks of the Council's interpretation of the Constitution in favour of the provinces. BackgroundIn 1923, the employees for the Toronto Electric Commission, through the Canadian Electrical Trades Union, went on strike over working conditions and wages. The union applied under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act to establish a dispute resolution board. The Commission asserted that this was in conflict with Ontario's Trade Disputes Act, and so applied to have the Act declared ultra vires as being beyond federal jurisdiction. In a 4-1 decision by Ferguson J.A., the Ontario Court of Appeal held that the federal Act was constitutional, as it derived from the s. 91 powers relating to peace, order and good government, trade and commerce, and criminal law. Hodgins J.A. dissented, stating that the Act could not stand, as it did not deal with a case of:
Opinion of the CouncilThe Ontario decision was reversed on appeal to the Privy Council. Viscount Haldane, agreeing with Hodgins' dissenting opinion, held that the Act could not be upheld under:
AftermathAfter Snider, the Parliament of Canada revised the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act to restrict its application to federally incorporated companies and federally regulated industries, but also allowed it to be extended to any province by Act of its legislature. Six provinces exercised that option by 1928, and by 1932 all provinces other than Prince Edward Island had done so.[2] In World War II, federal jurisdiction was restored under the Wartime Labour Relations Regulations, which lasted until 1947. Afterwards, the provinces asserted their jurisdiction, and labour relations subsequently became regulated province by province, with federal authority only extending to federally regulated industries.[3] Subsequent jurisprudenceIn 1979, the Supreme Court of Canada, in Northern Telecom v. Communications Workers[4] summarized post-Snider jurisprudence into the following principles:[5]
Notes1. ^{{cite BAILII|litigants=The Toronto Electric Commissioners v Colin G. Snider and others|link=|court=UKPC|division=|year=1925|num=2|parallelcite=[1925] AC 396|date=20 January 1925|courtname=P.C.|juris=Ontario|format = 1}} 2. ^{{harvnb|Scott|1960|p=159}} 3. ^{{harvnb|Scott|1960|pp=159{{endash}}160}} 4. ^Northern Telecom v. Communications Workers, 1979 CanLII 3 (SCC) ,[1980] 1 SCR 115 {{lexum-scc2|1980|1|115|3|1979}} 5. ^Northern Telecom, pp. 131{{endash}}132 References
6 : 1925 in Canadian case law|Canadian federalism case law|Judicial Committee of the Privy Council cases on appeal from Canada|Canadian labour case law|Labour disputes in Ontario|History of Toronto |
| 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。