Switzman v Elbling and A.G. of Quebec | |
---|---|
Hearing: November 7-9, 1956 Judgment: March 8, 1957 | |
Full case name | John Switzman v Freda Elbling and the Attorney-General of the Province of Quebec |
Citations | [1957] SCR 285 |
Docket No. | 08263[1] |
Ruling | Appeal allowed |
Holding | |
The Act Respecting Communistic Propaganda of the Province of Quebec, R.S.Q. 1941, c. 52, is ultra vires of the Provincial Legislature. | |
Court membership | |
Chief Justice: Patrick Kerwin Puisne Justices: Robert Taschereau, Ivan Rand, Roy Kellock, James Wilfred Estey, Charles Holland Locke, John Robert Cartwright, Gerald Fauteux, Douglas Abbott | |
Reasons given | |
Majority | Kerwin CJ and Locke, Cartwright, Fauteux and Nolan JJ |
Concurrence | Rand, Kellock and Abbott JJ |
Dissent | Taschereau J |
Laws applied | |
s.91-92 British North America Act, 1867 |
Switzman v Elbling and A.G. of Quebec, [1957] SCR 285 is a Supreme Court of Canada decision in which the Court ruled that Quebec's Act to Protect the Province Against Communistic Propaganda, commonly known as the "Padlock Law", was ultra vires of the provincial legislature. The Court held that the Padlock Law was a statute respecting criminal law, which is the exclusive authority of the Parliament of Canada under the British North America Act, 1867.[2] Rand, Kellock, and Abbott JJ further held that the law was ultra vires because it violated freedom of expression guaranteed under an implied bill of rights springing from the "democratic form of government established in Canada", but this view was not shared by the rest of the majority.[3][4]
A majority of the judges based their decision on the fact that the Padlock Law represented provincial interference with exclusive federal power over criminal law, and not on the grounds of civil liberties.