View source for Reference Re Alberta Statutes

{{Italic title}}{{Short description|1938 Canadian constitutional law case}}
{{Infobox court case
|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             = [[Viscount Maugham|The Lord Chancellor]], [[James Atkin, Baron Atkin|Lord Atkin]], [[William Watson, Baron Thankerton|Lord Thankerton]], [[Frank Russell, Baron Russell of Killowen|Lord Russell of Killowen]], [[Hugh Macmillan, Baron Macmillan|Lord Macmillan]]
|number of judges   = 5
|decision by        = [[Viscount Maugham|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           = <!-- {{flatlist|}} -->
|italic title       =
}}
'''''Reference Re Alberta Statutes''''',<ref>{{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=[[Judicial Committee of the Privy Council|P.C.]]|juris=Canada}}</ref> also known as the '''Alberta Press case''' and the '''Alberta Press Act Reference''', is a landmark [[reference question|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.

==Background==

The 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:

:* ''Credit of Alberta Regulation Act''<ref>SA 1937 (2nd Sess.), c. 1</ref> (requiring all bankers to obtain a license from the Social Credit Commission)
:* ''Bank Employees Civil Rights Act''<ref>SA 1937 (2nd Sess.), c. 2</ref> (preventing unlicensed banks and their employees from initiating civil actions)
:* ''Judicature Act Amendment Act''<ref>SA 1937 (2nd Sess.), c. 5</ref> (preventing any person from challenging the constitutionality of Alberta's laws in court without receiving the approval of the [[Lieutenant-Governor in Council]])

In August 1937, the federal government [[Disallowance and reservation in Canada|disallowed]] all three Acts. The [[Supreme Court of Canada]], in answering [[reference question]]s posed by the federal government, unanimously ruled that such disallowance was valid.<ref>{{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=}}</ref>

Following the disallowance, the Alberta legislature passed the following bills in October 1937:

:* Bill No. 1 ''Bank Taxation Act'' (levying provincial taxes on banks' paid-up capital and reserve funds at punitive rates)
:* Bill No. 8 ''Credit of Alberta Regulation Act, 1937'' (similar to the previous disallowed Act, but covering all "credit institutions")
:* Bill No. 9 ''[[Accurate News and Information Act]]'' (requiring newspapers to print "clarifications" of stories considered inaccurate by the [[Social Credit Board]], and to reveal their sources on demand, and also authorizing the provincial government to prohibit the publication of any newspaper, any article by a given writer, or any article making use of a given source)

All bills were [[Disallowance and reservation in Canada|reserved]] by Lieutenant-Governor [[John C. Bowen]]. As a result, the federal government posed [[reference question]]s 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 Canada==
All 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 ([[Lawrence Arthur Dumoulin Cannon|Cannon J]] expressing no opinion) that the ''Alberta Social Credit Act''<ref>SA 1937 (1st Sess.), c. 10</ref> was unconstitutional as well, as it attempted to intrude on the federal powers relating to [[currency]], banks and banking, and [[Trade and commerce (Canadian law)|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, [[Lyman Poore Duff|Duff CJ]] and [[Henry Hague Davis|Davis J]] argued that press freedom was too important to be left entirely to the provinces. The three judges argued that the [[Preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867|preamble]] of the ''[[Constitution Act, 1867|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 Council==
The Board declared that, as the ''Alberta Social Credit Act'' had been subsequently repealed by the Alberta legislature,<ref>SA 1938, c. 4</ref> 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 [[mootness|moot]], and they expressed no opinion on them.

As to Bill 1, the Board agreed with the opinion of [[Patrick Kerwin|Kerwin J]] (concurred in by [[Oswald Smith Crocket|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.<ref>SCC reference, at p. 151</ref>}}

Accordingly, the bill was in [[pith and substance]] a measure to regulate banking, and was thus ''ultra vires'' the province.

==Significance==

The SCC ruling is notable because three judges supported the [[Implied Bill of Rights]], a theory in Canadian constitutional law.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Alberta Statutes Reference}}
[[Category:Supreme Court of Canada cases]]
[[Category:Judicial Committee of the Privy Council cases on appeal from Canada]]
[[Category:Canadian freedom of expression case law]]
[[Category:Alberta case law]]
[[Category:Canadian federalism case law]]
[[Category:Political history of Alberta]]
[[Category:1938 in Canadian case law]]
[[Category:Supreme Court of Canada reference question cases]]
[[Category:Canadian social credit movement]]
[[Category:Banking case law in Canada]]
[[Category:Media case law]]
[[Category:Monarchy of Canada]]