SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1948 Supreme(SC) 82

Privy Council At Canada
Macmillan, Oaksey, Simonds, Lords Macmillan, Justice Viscount Simon, JJ.
Attorney-General of Saskatchewan -Appellant
Versus
Attorney-General of Canada and others -Resopndent
Privy Council Appeal No. 99 of 1947
Decided On : 22-11-1948

Advocates Appeared:
Lawrence Jones and Co., Investments Association, Dominion Mortgage, Chas Russell and Co., Redden, Blake, Investments Association, Dominion Mortgage, L.G. Goodenough, G.S.H. Carson, D.J. Mundell, Frank Gahan, J.L. Ilsley, Canadian Bar, M.C. Shumiatcher, R.S. Meldrum, F.C. Cronkite

The main legal point established in the judgment is that provincial legislation that trespassed upon the Dominion field, particularly in relation to interest, rendered the entire statute ultra vires.

Headnote:

Farm Security Act - Constitutional Validity - S. 6, Farm Security Act, 1944 - [S. 6, Farm Security Act, 1944, Chap. 30 of the Statutes of Saskatchewan 1944, as amended by S. 2 of Chap. 28 of the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1945] - The court considered the constitutional validity of S. 6, which aimed to modify the contractual rights of mortgagees or vendors of farm land in the event of a crop failure. The court found that para. 8 of sub-s. (2) of S. 6 trespassed upon the Dominion field, rendering S. 6 ultra vires as a whole.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada concerning the constitutional validity of S. 6, Farm Security Act, 1944, enacted by the Legislature of the Province of Saskatchewan.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that para. 8 of sub-s. (2) of S. 6 trespassed upon the Dominion field, rendering S. 6 ultra vires as a whole.

Issues: The main issue was the constitutional validity of S. 6, Farm Security Act, 1944, and its relation to the exclusive legislative power of the Dominion Parliament.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that para. 8 of sub-s. (2) of S. 6 trespassed upon the Dominion field, rendering S. 6 ultra vires as a whole.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.

Viscount Simon. -

This is an Appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada, dated 13th May 1947 (Rinfret C. J., Kerwin, Rand and Kellock JJ.; Taschereau J., dissenting), which answered a question propounded by the Governor-General in Council concerning the constitutional validity of S. 6,

Farm Security Act, 1944, enacted by the Legislature of the Province, of Saskatchewan, as amended by S. 2 of chap. 28 of the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1945. There was also a second question, framed on the hypothesis that the said S. 6 was not ultra vires, and asking whether the section was operative in the case of mortgages securing loans by the Crown in right of Canada and in certain analogous cases. The majority in the Supreme Court bald that S. 6 was wholly ultra vires and therefore found it unnecessary to answer the second question. Taschereau J. was of opinion that S. 6 was intra vires, and answered the second question in the negative.

[2] The questions referred by the Governor-General in Council to the Supreme Court for hearing and consideration were formulated as follows :

"1. Is S. 6, Farm Security Act, 1944, being Chap. 30 of the Statutes of Saskatchewan 1944 (second session) as amended by S. 2 of Chap. 28 of the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1945, or any of the provisions thereof, ultra, vires of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan either in whole or in part and if so in what particular or particulars and to what extent ?

2. If the said S. 6 is not ultra vires, is it operative according to its terms in the case of mortgages

(a) securing loans made by His Majesty in right of Canada either alone or jointly with any other person under the National Housing Act, 1944, or otherwise ;

(b) securing loans made by the Canadian Farm Loan Board ; or

(c) assigned to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation?"

[3] The Farm Security Act, 1944, of Saskatchewan is entitled "An Act for the Protection of Certain Mortgagors, Purchasers, and Lessees of Farm Land" and the main object of the Act is to lighten the contractual obligations of a mortgagor or purchaser of farm land in the event of the yield of grain grown upon the land falling below a prescribed minimum. The earlier sections of the Act provide for relief of this nature being granted also to lessees, who rent such land on the terms that the lessor is to receive a share of the crop, but S. 6 is concerned only with the modification of the contractual rights of mortgagees or vendors of farm land in respect of the contractual payments due to them in the event of a "crop failure".

[4] Sub-section (1) of section 6 defines "crop failure" as meaning a "failure of grain crops grown in any year on mortgaged land or on land sold under agreement of sale, due to causes beyond the control of the mortgagor or purchaser, to the extent that the sum realizable from the said crops is lees than a sum equal to six dollars per acre sown to grain in such year on such land". The sub-section also contains a definition of the phrase "period of suspension", which means "the period commencing on the first day of August in the year in which the crop failure occurs and ending on the thirty-first day of July in the nest succeeding year."

[5] Sub-section (2) of S. 6 must be set out in full. It runs as follows :

"(2) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, every mortgage and every agreement of sale shall be deemed to contain a condition that, in case of crop failure in any year and by reason only of such crop failure :

(1) the mortgagor or purchaser shall not be required to make any payment of principal to the mortgagee or vendor daring the period of suspension ;

(2) payment of any principal which falls due during the period of suspension and of any principal which thereafter falls due under the mortgage or agreement of sale shall become automatically postponed for one year;

(3) the principal outstanding on the fifteenth day of September in the period of suspension shall on that date become automatically reduced




















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top