Canada Temperance Act

Temperance legislation of general application had been enacted by the various colonies as early as 1855, when New Brunswick implemented total prohibition to mixed success.[2] Others, beginning with the Province of Canada on passage of the Dunkin Act in 1864,[lower-alpha 3] opted to allow local municipalities to implement temperance upon an approval by plebiscite.[3][lower-alpha 4]

The provinces continued to enact temperance legislation after the establishment of Canadian Confederation in 1867. Ontario passed the Crooks Act[lower-alpha 5] in 1876 to provide for the limiting of licences granted by municipal councils in areas not otherwise subject to the Dunkin Act.[7] The Parliament of Canada shortly followed afterwards with the passage of the Scott Act, which offered local option within a national scheme,[8] followed in 1883 by the McCarthy Act[lower-alpha 6] and its national licensing system.[8][lower-alpha 7]

In 1917, provision was made to suspend the operation of the Act where provincial temperance legislation was determined to be as restrictive in application.[11]

The Act was brought into effect in 17 municipalities:

Implementation of Canada Temperance Act[12]

Province	Year	Area
New Brunswick	1879	Albert County
		Carleton County
		Kings County
		Queens County
		York County
	1880	Northumberland County
		Westmorland County
Manitoba	1880	Electoral District of Marquette
	1881	Electoral District of Lisgar
Nova Scotia	1881	Digby
	1884	Yarmouth
	1885	Guysborough
Quebec	1913	Thetford Mines
Ontario	1913	District of Manitoulin
	1914	Huron County
		Perth County (excluding Stratford)[13]
	1915	Peel County

The Act was the subject of several constitutional challenges, many of which were of major importance in developing the jurisprudence underlying Canadian federalism:

• Severn v The Queen[14] (holding that an Ontario Act requiring the licensing of liquor wholesalers and manufacturers was unconstitutional for infringing on the federal jurisdiction over trade and commerce)[15]
• City of Fredericton v The Queen[16] (where the Supreme Court of Canada held that the Canada Temperance Act was a valid exercise of the trade and commerce power),[17] later overturned by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Russell v. The Queen[18] (which declared that the Act fell under the power relating to peace, order and good government)[19]
• Hodge v The Queen[20] (which introduced the double aspect doctrine, and declared that the provinces' jurisdiction under s. 92 was plenary in nature)[21]
• the Local Prohibition Case[22] (which held that prohibition fell under both federal and provincial jurisdiction, and clarified the nature of both federal and provincial powers)[23]

When prohibition in Ontario was relaxed in 1927, a reference question to the Supreme Court of Canada resulted in the 1935 finding that the 1917 determinations no longer applied in the counties of Perth, Huron and Peel.[24] A subsequent reference question by the Province of Ontario resulted in a declaration that the Canada Temperance Act was unconstitutional,[12] but this was subsequently reversed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in 1946 in Ontario v. Canada Temperance Federation.[25] Manitoulin and Peel would later hold plebiscites that revoked the application of the Act in December 1951,[26] while Huron and Perth—the last jurisdictions where the Act applied in Canada— would not do so until November 1959.[27][28]