Corporation of the City of Toronto v Attorney General for Canada
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 1945 |
| Year | 1945 |
| Date | 1945 |
| Court | Privy Council |
Canada - Administration of justice - Criminal Law - Prosecution - Instituted and conducted by Dominion Government - Conviction in provincial Supreme Court - Fine - Payable to Dominion Minister of Finance - Criminal Code of Canada,
By sub-s. 1 of s. 1036 of the Criminal Code of Canada: “Whenever no other provision is made by any law of Canada for the application of any fine …. imposed for the violation of any law …. the same shall be paid over …. to the treasurer of the province in which the same is imposed or recovered, except, that (a) …. (b) all fines …. imposed for whatever cause in any proceeding instituted at the instance of the Government of Canada …. in which that Government bears the cost of prosecution …. shall belong to His Majesty for the public uses of Canada, and shall be paid …. to the Minister of Finance ….; Provided, however, that with respect to the Province of Ontario the fines …. first mentioned in this section shall be paid over to the municipal or local authority where the municipal or local authority wholly or in part bears the expense of administering the law under which the same was imposed or recovered”:—
Held, that “the fines …. first mentioned in this section” in the proviso to sub-s. 1 of s. 1036 are all fines other than those excepted in heads (a) and (b), and refer to the fines dealt with in the beginning of the section, that is, in the main enactment. Accordingly, where the Dominion Government instituted, conducted and bore the costs of prosecutions against a number of companies which, in the result, were convicted in the Supreme Court of Ontario at Toronto of contravening the provisions of s. 498 of the Criminal Code, which is directed against conspiracies and combinations restrictive of industry and commerce, the fines imposed were payable to the Minister of Finance of the Dominion and not to the Corporation of the City of Toronto.
APPEAL (No. 50 of 1943) from a judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario (March 12, 1943) affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court of Ontario (October 14, 1942).
The following facts are taken from the judgment of the Judicial Committee. The Attorney-General for Canada on behalf of the Minister of Finance of the Dominion and the Corporation of the City of Toronto were competitors for a sum of $155,000 in the hands of the registrar of the Supreme Court of Ontario. That sum consisted of fines imposed on a number of companies convicted of contraventions of s. 498 of the Criminal Code, which was directed against conspiracies and combinations restrictive of industry and commerce. The prosecutions which resulted in the imposition of those fines were instituted and conducted by the Dominion Government. The trial, which was on indictment, took place at the assizes of the Supreme Court of Ontario at Toronto, before Hope J., sitting without a jury.
On the application of the registrar, with whom the fines had been deposited, Henderson J., on April 7, 1942, made an order directing that an issue be tried, with the Attorney-General for Canada as plaintiff and the Corporation of the City of Toronto as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Western Australia v Wilsmore
-
Chiaw Wai Onn v Public Prosecutor
...construed without attributing to it that effect: see Duncan v Dixon [1890] 44 Ch D 211 , Corp of the City of Toronto v A-G for Canada [1946] AC 32 and Mullins v Treasurer of the County of Surrey [1880] 5 QBD 170 . These propositions are fairly settled rules of construction. Hence, it would ......
-
Public Prosecutor v Oh Hu Sung
...construed without attributing to it that effect: see Duncan v Dixon [1890] 44 Ch D 211; Corp of the City of Toronto v AG for Canada [1946] AC 32 and Mullins v Treasurer of the County of Surrey [1880] 5 QBD 19 I subsequently applied this construction of s 217 in Virgie Rizza V Leong v Public......
-
Canadian National Transportation Ltd. and Canadian National Railway Co. v. Attorney General of Canada; Canadian Pacific Transport Co. and Paulley v. Attorney General of Canada, (1983) 49 N.R. 241 (SCC)
...General of Nova Scotia v. Attorney General of Canada, [1937] S.C.R. 403, consd. [para. 14]. Toronto v. Attorney General of Canada, [1946] A.C. 32, consd. [para. R. v. Lawrence (1878), 43 U.C.Q.B. 164, consd. [para. 25]. Ex parte Duncan (1872), 16 L.C.J. 188, consd. [para. 25]. R. v. Bush (1......