|
removed Category:Canadian people of Chinese descent; added Category:Chinese Canadian history using HotCat
|
No edit summary
|
||
| (22 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Infobox court case |
{{Infobox court case |
||
|name = Union Colliery Co |
|name = Union Colliery Co of British Columbia v Bryden |
||
|court =[[Judicial Committee of the Privy Council]] |
|court =[[Judicial Committee of the Privy Council]] |
||
|image = |
|image = Royal arms of the United Kingdom (1901-1952, Crown & Garter).svg |
||
|imagesize = |
|imagesize = 100px |
||
|imagelink = |
|imagelink = |
||
|imagealt = |
|imagealt = |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
|citations = [1899] UKPC 58, [1899] AC 580 |
|citations = [1899] UKPC 58, [1899] AC 580 |
||
|transcripts = |
|transcripts = |
||
|judges = [[William Watson, Baron Watson|Lord Watson]], [[Arthur Hobhouse, 1st Baron Hobhouse|Lord Hobhouse]], [[Edward Macnaghten, Baron Macnaghten|Lord Macnaghten]], [[Richard Couch|Sir Richard Couch]], [[Edward Fry|Sir Edward Fry]] |
|judges = [[William Watson, Baron Watson|Lord Watson]], [[Arthur Hobhouse, 1st Baron Hobhouse|Lord Hobhouse]], [[Edward Macnaghten, Baron Macnaghten|Lord Macnaghten]], [[Richard Couch (judge)|Sir Richard Couch]], [[Edward Fry|Sir Edward Fry]] |
||
|number of judges =5 |
|number of judges =5 |
||
|decision by =[[William Watson, Baron Watson|Lord Watson]] |
|decision by =[[William Watson, Baron Watson|Lord Watson]] |
||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
}} |
}} |
||
{{Italic title}} |
{{Italic title}} |
||
'''''Union Colliery Co |
'''''Union Colliery Co of British Columbia v Bryden'''''<ref>{{cite BAILII|litigants=Union Colliery Company of British Columbia, Limited and others v John Bryden|link=|court=UKPC|year=1899|num=58|date=28 July 1899|parallelcite =[1899] AC 580|courtname=[[Judicial Committee of the Privy Council|P.C.]]|juris=British Columbia|format = 1}}</ref> is a Canadian constitutional decision of the [[Judicial Committee of the Privy Council]] where the exclusivity principle in [[Canadian federalism]] and [[pith and substance]] analysis was first articulated. |
||
Bryden was a shareholder in Union Colliery, a coal mining company in British Columbia, and was troubled by the company's practice of employing "Chinamen" and putting them into positions of authority. He sought an injunction against the company for violating section 4 of the provincial Coal Mines Regulation Act of 1890, which prohibited hiring "Chinamen" to work in coal mines. Union Colliery challenged the constitutionality of Act, arguing that the prohibition related to matters of naturalization and was under the jurisdiction of the federal government under section 91(25) of the [[British North America Act, 1867]]. Bryden, however, argued that since the federal government had no laws covering the matter the province was allowed to step in and legislate on it. |
Bryden was a shareholder in Union Colliery, a coal mining company in British Columbia, and was troubled by the company's practice of employing "Chinamen" and putting them into positions of authority. He sought an injunction against the company for violating section 4 of the provincial Coal Mines Regulation Act of 1890, which prohibited hiring "[[Chinaman|Chinamen]]" to work in coal mines. Union Colliery challenged the constitutionality of Act, arguing that the prohibition related to matters of naturalization and was under the jurisdiction of the federal government under section 91(25) of the [[British North America Act, 1867]]. Bryden, however, argued that since the federal government had no laws covering the matter the province was allowed to step in and legislate on it. |
||
The issue before the Council was whether the provinces could legislate in matters under federal jurisdiction where the federal government has remained silent. |
The issue before the Council was whether the provinces could legislate in matters under federal jurisdiction where the federal government has remained silent. |
||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
{{reflist}} |
{{reflist}} |
||
{{Anti-Chinese sentiment}} |
|||
[[Category:1899 in Canadian case law]] |
[[Category:1899 in Canadian case law]] |
||
| ⚫ | |||
[[Category:Canadian articles needing infoboxes]] |
|||
[[Category:Chinese Canadian history]] |
|||
[[Category:Canadian civil rights case law]] |
|||
[[Category:Canadian federalism case law]] |
[[Category:Canadian federalism case law]] |
||
[[Category: |
[[Category:Canadian civil rights case law]] |
||
[[Category:History of Chinese Canadians]] |
|||
[[Category:Judicial Committee of the Privy Council cases on appeal from Canada]] |
[[Category:Judicial Committee of the Privy Council cases on appeal from Canada]] |
||
[[Category: |
[[Category:Anti-Chinese sentiment in Canada]] |
||
| ⚫ | |||
[[Category:Coal mining in Canada]] |
|||
| Union Colliery Co of British Columbia v Bryden | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Judicial Committee of the Privy Council |
| Full case name | Union Colliery Company of British Columbia, Limited and others v John Bryden |
| Decided | 28 July 1899 |
| Citation | [1899] UKPC 58, [1899] AC 580 |
| Case history | |
| Appealed from | Supreme Court of British Columbia |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Lord Watson, Lord Hobhouse, Lord Macnaghten, Sir Richard Couch, Sir Edward Fry |
| Case opinions | |
| Decision by | Lord Watson |
Union Colliery Co of British Columbia v Bryden[1] is a Canadian constitutional decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council where the exclusivity principle in Canadian federalism and pith and substance analysis was first articulated.
Bryden was a shareholder in Union Colliery, a coal mining company in British Columbia, and was troubled by the company's practice of employing "Chinamen" and putting them into positions of authority. He sought an injunction against the company for violating section 4 of the provincial Coal Mines Regulation Act of 1890, which prohibited hiring "Chinamen" to work in coal mines. Union Colliery challenged the constitutionality of Act, arguing that the prohibition related to matters of naturalization and was under the jurisdiction of the federal government under section 91(25) of the British North America Act, 1867. Bryden, however, argued that since the federal government had no laws covering the matter the province was allowed to step in and legislate on it.
The issue before the Council was whether the provinces could legislate in matters under federal jurisdiction where the federal government has remained silent.
The Council held that the pith and substance of the provision was in relation to "aliens and naturalized subjects" and did fall within the federal jurisdiction. They also held that the federal government did not need to pass laws in all areas within their jurisdiction, and under the exclusivity principle the province can never intrude upon the federal jurisdiction. It is only where the two governments make an explicit agreement can the province legislate in federal matters.
