Canada (AG) v Montreal (City of)

This article relies excessively on references to primary sources. Please improve this article by adding secondary or tertiary sources.
Find sources: "Canada (AG) v Montreal" City of – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (October 2023) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

|

Supreme Court of Canada case

Canada (AG) v Montreal (City of)

Supreme Court of Canada

Hearing: April 27 and 27, 1977
Judgment: January 19, 1978
Full case name| The Attorney General of Canada v. The City of Montreal and the Attorney General for Quebec;
Claire Dupond v. The City of Montreal and the Attorney General for Quebec
Citations| [1978] 2 S.C.R. 770
Prior history| Judgment for the City of Montreal and the Attorney General for Quebec in the Court of Appeal for Quebec.
Ruling| Appeal dismissed
Holding

1. Legislation relating to the municipal domain, which are preventative and not punitive in nature, fall under the provincial legislative domain
2. When a law is of a local or private nature, a party claiming otherwise has the burden of proof.

Court membership
Chief Justice: Bora Laskin
Puisne Justices: Ronald Martland, Roland Ritchie, Wishart Spence, Louis-Philippe Pigeon, Brian Dickson, Jean Beetz, Willard Estey, Yves Pratte
Reasons given
Majority| Beetz J., joined by Martland, Judson, Ritchie, Pigeon, and de Grandpré JJ.
Dissent| Laskin C.J., joined by Spence and Dickson JJ.

Canada (AG) v Montreal (City of), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 770 (also known as Dupond) is a constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court upheld a municipal law that regulated the traffic by repressing disorderly conduct during public parades under the provincial constitutional authority to create laws of a "local nature" in section 92(16) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The law was challenged as ultra vires the constitution as the law was claimed to be of a criminal law nature, a power exclusive to the federal government under section 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867, by preserving the peace and punishing disorderly conduct. However, City of Montreal cited Hodge v. The Queen, claiming that it allowed for a municipality to preserve peace and repress disorderly conduct in the context of a valid provincial program.

The Court agreed with the City and held in their favour. The Court held that the law was not criminal in nature as it was preventative and not punitive.

## See also

[edit]

* List of Supreme Court of Canada cases (Laskin Court)

## External links

[edit]

* Full text of Supreme Court of Canada decision at LexUM and CanLII