Historical Chronology of Important Constitutional Events

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Historical Chronology of Important Constitutional Events A GUIDE TO THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION I 2 I 5 Magna Carta (This is the date generally associated with Magna Carta. However, after King John's death and the ensuing period of conflict among the power elite in England, the Charter was re-issued by Henry III in 1225, and later confirmed by Edward I in 1297.) 1628 Charles I accepts the Petition of Right 1663 Royal Government in New France 1670 Royal Charter incorporating the Hudson's Bay Company 1679 Habeas Corpus Act (An Act for the better securing of the Liberty of the Subject, and for the Prevent1on of Imprisonment beyond the Seas) 1689 English Bill of Rights 1701 Act of Settlement 1713 Treaty of Utrecht 1763 The Royal Proclamation 1774 The Quebec Act 1787 (Adoption of the Constitution of the United States of America, 11 years after the Declara- tion of Independence) 1791 The Constitutional Act of 1791 1839 Lord Durham's Report on the Affairs of British North America 1840 The Act of Union 1864 The Quebec Conference 1865 The Colonial Laws Validity Act 1866 The London Conference liv / Chronology 1867 The British North America Act 1870 Order In Council admitting Rupert's Land and the Northwest Territories to the union 1870 The Manitoba Act (Canada) 1871 Order in Council admitting the colony of British Columbia to the union 1873 Order in Council admitting the colony of Prince Edward Island to the union 1875 The Supreme and Exchequer Court Act (Canada) 1880 Order in Council annexing to Canada all British territories and adjacent islands in North America 1896 A.-G. for Ontario v A.-G. for Canada (Local Prohibition case), [l896j A.C. 348 1905 The Alberta Act (Canada) 1905 The Saskatchewan Act (Canada) 1930 The Alberta Natural Resources Act, The Saskatchewan Natural Resources Act, The Manitoba Natural Resources Act (all, Canada) 1931 The Statute of Westminster 1933 The Extraterritorial Act (Canada) 1937 The Succession to the Throne Act (Canada) 1947 New Letters Patent for the Governor-General 1949 Amendment to the Supreme Court of Canada Act, Stats. Can. 1949, c. 37, ended appeals to the Privy Council ( enacted only after the Privy Council itself had decided that the Dominion Parliament had authority to make the amending decision inA.-G. for Ontario v A.-G. for Canada, [1947] A.C. 127) 1949 An Act to approve the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada (Canada) 1949 BNA Act amended to give the Dominion Parliament limited authority to amend the Con- stitution of Canada (sees. 91 (1) of BNA Act, as amended) 1960 The Canadian Bill of Rights 1969 Reg. v Drybones (1970), 9 D.L. R. (3d) 473 .

Copy Link

Recommended publications

The Draft Senedd Cymru (Disqualification) Order 2020
Number: WG39581 Welsh Government Consultation Document The draft Senedd Cymru (Disqualification) Order 2020 Date of issue: 22 June 2020 Action required: Responses by 1 September 2020 Mae’r ddogfen yma hefyd ar gael yn Gymraeg. This document is also available in Welsh. © Crown Copyright Overview Section 16 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 allows an Order in Council to designate particular offices so that, if a person holds one of those offices, they are disqualified from being a Member of the Senedd1 (but not from being a candidate to be a Member of the Senedd). This consultation seeks your views on which offices should be included in the new Order, the Draft Senedd Cymru (Disqualification) Order 2020 which will revoke and replace the current Order, the National Assembly for Wales (Disqualification) Order 2015. How to respond You can respond to this consultation by completing, by the closing date, the consultation response form at the back of this document and returning it to us by post to the address below. Arrangements have been put in place to ensure responses submitted by post are received during the COVID-19 pandemic. Constitution and Justice Welsh Government Cathays Park Cardiff CF10 3NQ The consultation response form can also be returned to us by e-mail to: [email protected] When sending your response by e-mail, please mark the subject of your e-mail Senedd Cymru (Disqualification) Order 2020 Consultation Alternatively an online consultation response form is available on our website www.gov.wales/consultations/?lang=en Further information Large print, Braille and alternative language and related versions of this document are available on documents request.
[Show full text]
The Constitutional Role of the Privy Council and the Prerogative 3
Foreword The Privy Council is shrouded in mystery. As Patrick O’Connor points out, even its statutory definition is circular: the Privy Council is defined by the Interpretation Act 1978 as the members of ‘Her Majesty’s Honourable Privy Council’. Many people may have heard of its judicial committee, but its other roles emerge from the constitutional fog only occasionally – at their most controversial, to dispossess the Chagos Islanders of their home, more routinely to grant a charter to a university. Tracing its origin back to the twelfth or thirteen century, its continued existence, if considered at all, is regarded as vaguely charming and largely formal. But, as the vehicle that dispossessed those living on or near Diego Garcia, the Privy Council can still display the power that once it had more widely as an instrument of feudal rule. Many of its Orders in Council bypass Parliament but have the same force as democratically passed legislation. They are passed, unlike such legislation, without any express statement of compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights. What is more, Orders in Council are not even published simultaneously with their passage. Two important orders relating to the treatment of the Chagos Islanders were made public only five days after they were passed. Patrick, originally inspired by his discovery of the essay that the great nineteenth century jurist Albert Venn Dicey wrote for his All Souls Fellowship, provides a fascinating account of the history and continuing role of the Privy Council. He concludes by arguing that its role, and indeed continued existence, should be subject to fundamental review.
[Show full text]
Mcgill Paper
Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, Issue #80, August 19, 2008. © by CJEAP and the author(s). ONTARIO’S CHALLENGE: DENOMINATIONAL RIGHTS IN PUBLIC EDUCATION* Dawn Zinga Brock University Denominational rights in education have a long and controversial history within Canada. Ontario has struggled with denomination rights and continues to face the challenges posed by accommodating denominational rights. This paper examines those challenges and considers the future of denominational rights in Ontario, in light of John Tory‘s 2007 election campaign platform to extend funding to all faith-based schools or to none. It includes a consideration of the historical roots of denominational rights, their expression throughout Canada, the conflicts between denominational rights and the Charter, the media storm that surrounded the faith-based funding campaign, and proposed solutions to the question of denominational rights in Ontario. Introduction Denominational rights in education have been an issue of contention since the creation of Canada. The question of how education was to be established was one of the most difficult questions to address during the process of the formation of Canada (Brophy, 1894) and at the heart of the matter was the question of denominational rights (Bezeau, 2007). Denominational rights within education have continued to be contentious and have lead to some interesting developments within Canada. In particular, Ontario has struggled with the issue of denominational rights * I wish to thank Megan Davis and Angela Dziondziak for their assistance in the preparation of this manuscript. I also wish to thank the three anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments on an earlier version of this article.
[Show full text]
Brief by Professor François Larocque Research Chair In
BRIEF BY PROFESSOR FRANÇOIS LAROCQUE RESEARCH CHAIR IN LANGUAGE RIGHTS UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA PRESENTED TO THE SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES AS PART OF ITS STUDY OF THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGES REFORM PROPOSAL UNVEILED ON FEBRUARY 19, 2021, BY THE MINISTER OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND OFFICIAL LANGUAGES, ENGLISH AND FRENCH: TOWARDS A SUBSTANTIVE EQUALITY OF OFFICIAL LANGUAGES IN CANADA MAY 31, 2021 Professor François Larocque Faculty of Law, Common Law Section University of Ottawa 57 Louis Pasteur Ottawa, ON K1J 6N5 Telephone: 613-562-5800, ext. 3283 Email: [email protected] 1. Thank you very much to the honourable members of the Senate Standing Committee on Official Languages (the “Committee”) for inviting me to testify and submit a brief as part of the study of the official languages reform proposal entitled French and English: Towards a Substantive Equality of Official Languages in Canada (“the reform proposal”). A) The reform proposal includes ambitious and essential measures 2. First, I would like to congratulate the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages for her leadership and vision. It is, in my opinion, the most ambitious official languages reform proposal since the enactment of the Constitution Act, 1982 (“CA1982”)1 and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“Charter”),2 which enshrined the main provisions of the Official Languages Act (“OLA”)3 of 1969 in the Canadian Constitution. The last reform of the OLA was in 1988 and it is past time to modernize it to adapt it to Canada’s linguistic realities and challenges in the 21st century. 3. The Charter and the OLA proclaim that “English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and government of Canada.”4 In reality, however, as reported by Statistics Canada,5 English is dominant everywhere, while French is declining, including in Quebec.
[Show full text]
Part I Background and Summary
PART I BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY Chapter 1 BRITISH STATUTES IN IDSTORICAL PERSPECTIVE The North American plantations were not the earliest over seas possessions of the English Crown; neither were they the first to be treated as separate political entities, distinct from the realm of England. From the time of the Conquest onward, the King of England held -- though not necessarily simultaneously or continuously - a variety of non-English possessions includ ing Normandy, Anjou, the Channel Islands, Wales, Jamaica, Scotland, the Carolinas, New-York, the Barbadoes. These hold ings were not a part of the Kingdom of England but were govern ed by the King of England. During the early medieval period the King would issue such orders for each part of his realm as he saw fit. Even as he tended to confer more and more with the officers of the royal household and with the great lords of England - the group which eventually evolved into the Council out of which came Parliament - with reference to matters re lating to England, he did likewise with matters relating to his non-English possessions.1 Each part of the King's realm had its own peculiar laws and customs, as did the several counties of England. The middle ages thrived on diversity and while the King's writ was acknowledged eventually to run throughout England, there was little effort to eliminate such local practices as did not impinge upon the power of the Crown. The same was true for the non-Eng lish lands. An order for one jurisdictional entity typically was limited to that entity alone; uniformity among the several parts of the King's realm was not considered sufficiently important to overturn existing laws and customs.
[Show full text]
British Overseas Territories Law
British Overseas Territories Law Second Edition Ian Hendry and Susan Dickson HART PUBLISHING Bloomsbury Publishing Plc Kemp House , Chawley Park, Cumnor Hill, Oxford , OX2 9PH , UK HART PUBLISHING, the Hart/Stag logo, BLOOMSBURY and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published in Great Britain 2018 First edition published in 2011 Copyright © Ian Hendry and Susan Dickson , 2018 Ian Hendry and Susan Dickson have asserted their right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to be identiﬁ ed as Authors of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. While every care has been taken to ensure the accuracy of this work, no responsibility for loss or damage occasioned to any person acting or refraining from action as a result of any statement in it can be accepted by the authors, editors or publishers. All UK Government legislation and other public sector information used in the work is Crown Copyright © . All House of Lords and House of Commons information used in the work is Parliamentary Copyright © . This information is reused under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 ( http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/ open-government-licence/version/3 ) except where otherwise stated. All Eur-lex material used in the work is © European Union, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ , 1998–2018. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
[Show full text]
Case and ~C®Mment
251 CASE AND ~C®MMENT. CROWN -SERVANT- INCORPORATION -IMMUNITY FROM BEING SUED. The recent case of Gilleghan v. Minister of Healthl decided by Farwell, J., is a decision on the questions : Will an action lie against a Minister-of the Crown in respect of an act admittedly done as a Minister of the Crown? Or -is the true view that the only remedy is against the Crown by petition of right? Does the mere incorporation. of a servant of the Crown confer the privilege of suing and the liability to be sued? The rationale for the general rule that a servant of the Crown cannot be sued in his official capacity is that the servant holds no assets in his official capacity which can be seized in satisfaction of a judgment. He holds only on behalf of the Crown.2 Collins, M.R., in Bainbridge v. Postmaster-General3 said : "The revenue of the country cannot be reached by an action against an official, unless there is some provision to be found in the legisla~ tion to enable this to be done." In the Gilleghan case the defendant moved to-strike out the statement of claim. The Minister of Health was established by the Ministry of Health Act- which provided, inter alia, that the Minister "may sue and be sued in the name of the Minister of Health" and that "for the purpose of acquiring and holding land" the Minister for the time being "shall be a corporation sole." Farwell, J ., decided that the provision that the Minister may sue and be sued does not give the plaintiff a cause of action for breach of contract against the Minister.
[Show full text]
Runnymede Revisited: Bicentennial Reflections on a 750Th Anniversary William F
College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Faculty Publications Faculty and Deans 1976 Runnymede Revisited: Bicentennial Reflections on a 750th Anniversary William F. Swindler William & Mary Law School Repository Citation Swindler, William F., "Runnymede Revisited: Bicentennial Reflections on a 750th Anniversary" (1976). Faculty Publications. 1595. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs/1595 Copyright c 1976 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs MISSOURI LAW REVIEW Volume 41 Spring 1976 Number 2 RUNNYMEDE REVISITED: BICENTENNIAL REFLECTIONS ON A 750TH ANNIVERSARY* WILLIAM F. SWINDLER" I. MAGNA CARTA, 1215-1225 America's bicentennial coincides with the 750th anniversary of the definitive reissue of the Great Charter of English liberties in 1225. Mile- stone dates tend to become public events in themselves, marking the be- ginning of an epoch without reference to subsequent dates which fre- quently are more significant. Thus, ten years ago, the common law world was astir with commemorative festivities concerning the execution of the forced agreement between King John and the English rebels, in a marshy meadow between Staines and Windsor on June 15, 1215. Yet, within a few months, John was dead, and the first reissues of his Charter, in 1216 and 1217, made progressively more significant changes in the document, and ten years later the definitive reissue was still further altered.' The date 1225, rather than 1215, thus has a proper claim on the his- tory of western constitutional thought-although it is safe to assume that few, if any, observances were held vis-a-vis this more significant anniver- sary of Magna Carta.
[Show full text]
THE LEGACY of the MAGNA CARTA MAGNA CARTA 1215 the Magna Carta Controlled the Power Government Ruled with the Consent of Eventually Spreading Around the Globe
THE LEGACY OF THE MAGNA CARTA MAGNA CARTA 1215 The Magna Carta controlled the power government ruled with the consent of eventually spreading around the globe. of the King for the first time in English the people. The Magna Carta was only Reissues of the Magna Carta reminded history. It began the tradition of respect valid for three months before it was people of the rights and freedoms it gave for the law, limits on government annulled, but the tradition it began them. Its inclusion in the statute books power, and a social contract where the has lived on in English law and society, meant every British lawyer studied it. PETITION OF RIGHT 1628 Sir Edward Coke drafted a document King Charles I was not persuaded by By creating the Petition of Right which harked back to the Magna Carta the Petition and continued to abuse Parliament worked together to and aimed to prevent royal interference his power. This led to a civil war, and challenge the King. The English Bill with individual rights and freedoms. the King ultimately lost power, and his of Rights and the Constitution of the Though passed by the Parliament, head! United States were influenced by it. HABEAS CORPUS ACT 1679 The writ of Habeas Corpus gives imprisonment. In 1697 the House of Habeas Corpus is a writ that exists in a person who is imprisoned the Lords passed the Habeas Corpus Act. It many countries with common law opportunity to go before a court now applies to everyone everywhere in legal systems. and challenge the lawfulness of their the United Kingdom.
[Show full text]
Constitutional Obligation of Alberta to Publish Laws in French: R V Caron and Boutet
Constitutional Obligation of Alberta to Publish Laws in French: R v Caron and Boutet Margaret Unsworth, QC* Th is paper outlines the decisions of the Courts the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11), in the cases of Gilles Caron and Pierre Boutet that the said Languages Act of Alberta, [Caron]1 as well as the basic arguments advanced to the extent that it abolishes or reduces by the parties at the Supreme Court of Canada. the linguistic rights that were in force in Th e central issue in the case is whether there is Alberta before its adoption, pursuant to a constitutional obligation on the Province of section 110 of the North-West Territories Alberta to publish its laws in French. Act, 1875, as amended, is incompatible with the Constitution of Canada and is Th is is not intended to be an exhaustive anal- inoperative. ysis of the myriad of issues that were argued by Mr. Caron and Mr. Boutet in defence of their 2. An order pursuant to subsection 24(1) traffi c tickets. Rather, the objective is to give an of the Charter that the charge against the overview of the essentials of each of the deci- accused, Gilles Caron, be struck out. sions and the basic arguments advanced. Th is paper will also not address the matter of funding 3. A declaration pursuant to section 52 at trial, an issue in this case which also went to that the Legislature of the Province of the Supreme Court of Canada.2 Alberta must adopt in French and have all Acts and Regulations of the Province of Alberta assented to beginning with Background those required by Gilles Caron for this trial: Traffi c Safety Act; Use of Highways On the 4th of December 2003, Mr.
[Show full text]
Sovereignty and Natural Resources-A Study of Canadian Petroleum Legislation
Valparaiso University Law Review Volume 1 Number 2 Spring 1967 p.284 Spring 1967 Sovereignty and Natural Resources-A Study of Canadian Petroleum Legislation A. R. Thompson Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation A. R. Thompson, Sovereignty and Natural Resources-A Study of Canadian Petroleum Legislation, 1 Val. U. L. Rev. 284 (1967). Available at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr/vol1/iss2/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Valparaiso University Law School at ValpoScholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Valparaiso University Law Review by an authorized administrator of ValpoScholar. For more information, please contact a ValpoScholar staff member at [email protected]. Thompson: Sovereignty and Natural Resources-A Study of Canadian Petroleum L SOVEREIGNTY AND NATURAL RESOURCES-A STUDY OF CANADIAN PETROLEUM LEGISLATION* A. R. THOMPSONI THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM Exploitation of natural resources is a major preoccupation of gov- ernments. Industrial nations seek to ensure a full flow of raw ma- terials; newly developing nations seek to provide the underpinnings of an industrial economy. In the United Nations, symposiums have focused attention on resource development.' These studies have sought to place the exercise of sovereignty over resources in proper perspective to foster a balance of interests between the developer and the country whose re- sources are exploited.2 In balancing these interests, sovereignty and se- curity of tenure are opposite sides of the scale. In the name of "sover- eignty,"' a country claims to control resource development as the national interest may dictate from time to time; in the name of "security of ten- ure," developers claim to exercise their acquired rights unimpeded and undiminished.
[Show full text]
Jurisdictional Dilemmas in Resource Industries I
1979) JURISDICTIONALDILEMMAS 91 JURISDICTIONALDILEMMAS IN RESOURCEINDUSTRIES WILLIAM M. ELLIOTT• This paper highlights constitutional dilemmas posed by the Canadian constitution in matters of resource regulation., marketing and taxation., with particular em phasis on Saskatchewan. The background to and impact of the CIGOL case is examined, including a discussion of the issues of direct tazation and the trade and commerce power. Ancillary matters such as recovery of payments under invalid laws and techniques of interim relief also receive scndiny. Similar problems in the potash and uranium industries are analyzed. I. INTRODUCTION The dilemmas posed by constitutional limitations on the powers of provincial governments and the federal government are not confined to oil and gas, but include all resources. Oil and gas are merely part of a larger question. Furthermore, the problems vary from region to region and province to province, and the approaches and solutions vary with the political philosophy of governments of the day. The struggle is not new and will not go away even in the event of constitutional change. Corporations, whether private or publicly owned, will always be faced with the discipline of the bottom line and governments with the real or fancied "need" of politicians and tax gatherers. The words "fair", "reasonable," "just' and "unconstitu tional" will continue to be heard. One should not expect any so-called solutions to be more than a te.mporary lull before another storm. In a huge country divided by regions, and governed by a federal system with divided constitutional powers, the possibilities of disagreement are endless. II. HISTORY Sections 91 and 92 of the British North America Act 1 give rise to most of the jurisdictional questions.
[Show full text]