Canada Temperance Act

Temperance legislation of general application had been enacted by the various colonies as early as 1855, when New Brunswick implemented total prohibition to mixed success.{{sfn|Fish|2011|p=197}} Others, beginning with the Province of Canada on the passage of the Dunkin Act in 1864, named after its sponsor Christopher Dunkin, opted to allow local municipalities to implement temperance upon an approval by plebiscite.{{Cite canlaw|short title =The Temperance Act of 1864|abbr =S.Prov.C.|year =1864|chapter = 18|link= https://books.google.com/books?id=AHCuAAAAMAAJ&lpg=PA165&ots=SI-wiQmTCo&pg=PA146#v=onepage&f=false}}

The Act proved to be problematic in its operation following the division of the Province into Ontario and Quebec. In Ex parte O'Neill, RJQ 24 SC 304,{{cite book |last= Lefroy|first= Augustus Henry Frazer|year= 1918|title= A short treatise on Canadian constitutional law|url= https://archive.org/stream/shorttreatiseonc00lefrrich#page/188/mode/2up|location= Toronto|publisher= The Carswell Company|page= 189}} it was held that the National Assembly of Quebec could not repeal the Dunkin Act, but it could pass a concurrent statute for regulating liquor traffic within the province.{{cite book |last= Lefroy|first= Augustus Henry Frazer|year= 1913|title= Canada's Federal System|url= https://archive.org/stream/canadasfederalsy00lefr#page/162/mode/2up|location= Toronto|publisher= The Carswell Company|pages= 162{{endash}}163}} It was also later held that the Parliament of Canada could not repeal that Act with respect only to Ontario.{{cite BAILII|litigants=The Attorney General for Ontario v The Attorney General for the Dominion of Canada, and the Distillers and Brewers' Association of Ontario (The "Local Prohibition Case")|link=Local Prohibition Case|court=UKPC|year=1896|num=20|parallelcite = [1896] AC 348|date=9 May 1896|courtname=P.C.|juris=Canada|format=1}}

The provinces continued to enact temperance legislation after the establishment of Canadian Confederation in 1867. Ontario passed the Crooks Act{{efn|named after its sponsor Adam Crooks}} in 1876 to provide for the limiting of licences granted by municipal councils in areas not otherwise subject to the Dunkin Act.{{Cite canlaw|short title =An Act to amend the Law respecting the sale of Fermented and Spirituous Liquors|abbr =S.O.|year =1875-76|chapter = 26|link= https://archive.org/details/statutesofprovi187576onta/page/120}} The Parliament of Canada shortly followed afterwards with the passage of the Scott Act, which offered local option within a national scheme,{{sfn|Fish|2011|p=198}} followed in 1883 by the McCarthy Act, named after its sponsor, Dalton McCarthy, and its national licensing system.{{sfn|Fish|2011|p=198}}{{efn|{{Cite canlaw|short title =The Liquor License Act, 1883|abbr =S.C.|year =1883|chapter = 30|link= https://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015074701312?urlappend=%3Bseq=501}}, subsequently declared unconstitutional in the McCarthy Act Reference.{{sfn|Fish|2011|p=203}}{{cite journal |last1= Risk|first1= R.C.B.|date= 1990|title= Canadian Courts under the Influence|jstor= 825682|journal= University of Toronto Law Journal|volume= 40|issue= 4|pages= 687–737|doi= 10.2307/825682}} at 715-721}}

In 1917, provision was made to suspend the operation of the Act if provincial temperance legislation was determined to be as restrictive in application.{{Cite canlaw|short title =An Act to amend an Act in aid of Provincial Legislation prohibiting or restricting the sale or use of Intoxicating Liquors|abbr =S.C.|year =1917|chapter = 30|section=2|link= https://archive.org/details/actsofparl1917v01cana/page/301}}

The Act was brought into effect in 17 municipalities:

The Act was the subject of several constitutional challenges, many of which were of major importance in developing the jurisprudence underlying Canadian federalism:

:* Severn v The Queen{{cite CanLII|litigants=Severn v The Queen|link=|year=1878|court=scc|num=29|format=canlii|parallelcite=[1878] 2 SCR 70, 1 Cart 414|date=1878-01-28}} (holding that an Ontario Act requiring the licensing of liquor wholesalers and manufacturers was unconstitutional for infringing on the federal jurisdiction over trade and commerce){{sfn|Fish|2011|p=200}}

:* City of Fredericton v The Queen{{cite CanLII|litigants=City of Fredericton v The Queen|link=|year=1880|court=scc|num=28|format=canlii|parallelcite=[1880] 3 SCR 505, 2 Cart 27|date=1880-04-13}} (the Supreme Court of Canada held that the Canada Temperance Act was a valid exercise of the trade and commerce power),{{sfn|Fish|2011|p=201}} later overturned by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Russell v. The Queen{{cite BAILII|litigants=Charles Russell v The Queen|link=Russell v R|court=UKPC|year=1882|num=33|parallelcite = [1882] 7 App Cas 829, 8 CRAC 502|date=23 June 1882|courtname=P.C.|juris=New Brunswick|format = 1}} (which declared that the Act fell under the power relating to peace, order and good government){{sfn|Fish|2011|pp=201-202}}

:* Hodge v The Queen{{cite BAILII|litigants=Hodge v The Queen|link=Hodge v R|court=UKPC|year=1883|num=59|date=15 December 1883|parallelcite =[1883] 9 AC 117|courtname=P.C.|juris=Ontario|format = 1}} (which introduced the double aspect doctrine and declared that the provinces' jurisdiction under Section 92 was plenary in nature){{sfn|Fish|2011|pp=202-203}}

:* the Local Prohibition Case{{cite BAILII|litigants=The Attorney General for Ontario v The Attorney General for the Dominion of Canada, and the Distillers and Brewers’ Association of Ontario|link=Local Prohibition Case|court=UKPC|year=1896|num=20|parallelcite = [1896] AC 348|date=9 May 1896|courtname=P.C.|juris=Canada|format=1}} (which held that prohibition fell under both federal and provincial jurisdiction and clarified the nature of both federal and provincial powers){{sfn|Fish|2011|pp=203-204}}

When prohibition in Ontario was relaxed in 1927, a reference question to the Supreme Court of Canada resulted in the 1935 finding that the Act still applied in the counties of Perth, Huron and Peel.{{cite CanLII|litigants=Reference re Canada Temperance Act|link=|year=1935|court=scc|num=38|format=canlii|parallelcite=[1935] SCR 494|date=1935-06-28}} A subsequent reference question by the Province of Ontario to the Ontario Court of Appeal resulted in a declaration that the Canada Temperance Act was constitutional,{{cite CanLII|litigants=Re Canada Temperance Act|link=|year=1939|court=onca|num=58|format=canlii|parallelcite=[1939] OR 570; [1939] 4 DLR 14; 72 CCC 145|date=1939-09-26|courtname=auto}} which was subsequently affirmed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in 1946 in Ontario v. Canada Temperance Federation.{{cite BAILII|litigants=The Attorney-General of Ontario and others v The Canada Temperance Federation|link=Ontario (AG) v Canada Temperance Federation|court=UKPC|year=1946|num=2|parallelcite = [1946] A.C. 193|date=21 January 1946|courtname=P.C.|juris=Ontario|format=1}} Manitoulin and Peel would later hold plebiscites that revoked the application of the Act in December 1951,{{cite news |author= |title= A Wet Win?|url= http://news.haltonhills.halinet.on.ca/88190/page/2|work= The Acton Free Press|location= Acton, Ontario|page=2|date= 6 December 1951}} and Huron and Perth, the last jurisdictions in which the Act applied in Canada, would not do so until November 1959.{{cite news |last= French-Gibson|first= Elizabeth|date= 2017|title= Prohibition in Huron County: What Life was like in the 'Dry' Years|url= http://www.huronperthboomers.com/wp-content/HuronPerthBoomers_Summer2017_web.pdf|work= Huron-Perth Boomers|location= Goderich, Ontario|volume= 2|issue=2|pages= 12–14}}{{cite news|author= |title= Pieces of the Past: The Arlington Hotel in Listowel|url= https://www.southwesternontario.ca/community-story/8102527-pieces-of-the-past-the-arlington-hotel-in-listowel/|work= The Listowel Banner|location= Listowel, Ontario|date= January 31, 2018|access-date= January 17, 2019|archive-date= January 17, 2019|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20190117122359/https://www.southwesternontario.ca/community-story/8102527-pieces-of-the-past-the-arlington-hotel-in-listowel/|url-status= dead}}

The Act remained on the statute books until its repeal in 1984.{{Cite canlaw|short title =Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 1984|abbr =S.C.|year =1984|chapter = 40|section=69|link= https://archive.org/details/actsofparl198384v02cana/page/1492}}

• Prohibition in Canada
• 1894 Ontario prohibition plebiscite
• 1898 Canadian prohibition plebiscite
• 1902 Ontario prohibition referendum
• 1919 Quebec prohibition referendum
• 1919 Ontario prohibition referendum
• 1920 Canadian liquor plebiscite
• 1921 Ontario prohibition referendum
• 1924 Ontario prohibition referendum
• Ontario Temperance Act 1916

• {{cite thesis |last= Brock|first= Kathy Lenore|date= 1982|title= Sacred Boundaries: Local Option Laws in Ontario|type= M.A.|publisher= McMaster University|url= https://macsphere.mcmaster.ca/bitstream/11375/11021/1/fulltext.pdf}}
• {{Cite journal|first = Morris J.|last = Fish|title = The Effect of Alcohol on the Canadian Constitution ... Seriously|volume = 57|issue = 1|year = 2011|pages = 189{{endash}}209|author-link = Morris J. Fish|url = http://lawjournal.mcgill.ca/userfiles/other/3831439-57.1.art.Fish.pdf|journal = McGill Law Journal|issn = 1920-6356|doi = 10.7202/1006421ar|access-date = 2019-01-17|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160305060123/http://lawjournal.mcgill.ca/userfiles/other/3831439-57.1.art.Fish.pdf|archive-date = 2016-03-05|url-status = dead}}

{{notelist}}

{{reflist}}

Category:1878 in Canadian law

Category:Canadian federal legislation

Category:Temperance movement in Canada

Category:Repealed Canadian legislation

Category:Alcohol law in Canada