Jump to content
 







Main menu
   


Navigation  



Main page
Contents
Current events
Random article
About Wikipedia
Contact us
Donate
 




Contribute  



Help
Learn to edit
Community portal
Recent changes
Upload file
 








Search  

































Create account

Log in
 









Create account
 Log in
 




Pages for logged out editors learn more  



Contributions
Talk
 



















Contents

   



(Top)
 


1 See also  





2 References  














Union Colliery Co of British Columbia v Bryden







Add links
 









Article
Talk
 

















Read
Edit
View history
 








Tools
   


Actions  



Read
Edit
View history
 




General  



What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Cite this page
Get shortened URL
Download QR code
Wikidata item
 




Print/export  



Download as PDF
Printable version
 




Print/export  



















Appearance
   

 






From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 


This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RevelationDirect (talk | contribs)at01:24, 15 September 2021 (removed Category:Anti-discrimination law in Canada using HotCat Not a law). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
(diff)  Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision  (diff)

Union Colliery Co of British Columbia v Bryden
CourtJudicial Committee of the Privy Council
Full case nameUnion Colliery Company of British Columbia, Limited and others v John Bryden
Decided28 July 1899
Citation[1899] UKPC 58, [1899] AC 580
Case history
Appealed fromSupreme Court of British Columbia
Court membership
Judges sittingLord Watson, Lord Hobhouse, Lord Macnaghten, Sir Richard Couch, Sir Edward Fry
Case opinions
Decision byLord Watson

Union Colliery Co of British Columbia v Bryden[1] is a famous 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.

See also

References

  1. ^ Union Colliery Company of British Columbia, Limited and others v John Bryden [1899] UKPC 58, [1899] AC 580 (28 July 1899), P.C. (on appeal from British Columbia)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Union_Colliery_Co_of_British_Columbia_v_Bryden&oldid=1044397629"

Categories: 
1899 in Canadian case law
Canadian federalism case law
Canadian civil rights case law
History of Chinese Canadians
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council cases on appeal from Canada
 



This page was last edited on 15 September 2021, at 01:24 (UTC).

This version of the page has been revised. Besides normal editing, the reason for revision may have been that this version contains factual inaccuracies, vandalism, or material not compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.



Privacy policy

About Wikipedia

Disclaimers

Contact Wikipedia

Code of Conduct

Developers

Statistics

Cookie statement

Mobile view



Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki