Double aspect doctrine
The Double aspect doctrine in
property and civil rights
power of the province, but equally, can be a criminal offence which is in the criminal law power of the federal government.
The origin of the doctrine comes from the 1883
Hodge v. The Queen,[1]
where it was stated that "subjects which in one aspect and for one purpose fall within s. 92, may in another aspect and for another purpose fall within s. 91".
Matters of the double aspect doctrine
The Courts have established several matters that are considered "double aspect" and can be legislated by either provincial or federal government. Those matters include:
- Entertainment in taverns[2]
- Gaming[3]
- Interest rates[4]
- Insolvency[5]
- Maintenance of spouses and child custody[6]
- Securities regulations[7]
- Temperance[8]
References
- ^ Hodge v The Queen (Canada) [1883] UKPC 59, [1883] 9 AC 117 (15 December 1883), P.C. (on appeal from Ontario)
- Rio Hotel Ltd. v. New Brunswick (Liquor Licensing Board), 1987 CanLII 72, [1987] 2 SCR 59 (29 July 1987)
- Siemens v. Manitoba (Attorney General), 2003 SCC 3, [2003] 1 SCR 6 (30 January 2003)
- ^ Attorney General (Ontario) v. Barfried Enterprises, 1963 CanLII 15, [1963] SCR 570 (16 December 1963)
- ^ Robinson v. Countrywide Factors Ltd., 1977 CanLII 175, [1978] 1 SCR 753 (25 January 1977)
- ^ Papp v. Papp, [1970] 1 OR 331
- Multiple Access Ltd. v. McCutcheon, 1982 CanLII 1705, [1982] 2 SCR 161 (9 August 1982)
- ^ The Attorney General for Ontario v The Attorney General for the Dominion of Canada, and the Distillers and Brewers’ Association of Ontario [1896] UKPC 20, [1896] AC 348 (9 May 1896), P.C. (on appeal from Canada)
Further reading
- Peter Hogg, Constitutional law of Canada, section 15.5(c)