Morgan et al. v. Prince Edward Island (Attorney General) et al., (1975) 7 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 537 (SCC)

• Judge: Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Judson, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz and de Grandpré, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: June 26, 1975
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1975), 7 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 537 (SCC);1975 CanLII 144 (SCC);5 NR 455;[1976] 1 SCR 783;[1976] 2 SCR 349;55 DLR (3d) 527;7 Nfld & PEIR 537;1975 CanLII 162 (SCC)

Morgan v. P.E.I. (A.G.) (1975), 7 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 537 (SCC);

    3 A.P.R. 537

MLB headnote and full text

Morgan et al. v. Attorney General for the Province of Prince Edward Island et al.

Indexed As: Morgan et al. v. Prince Edward Island (Attorney General) et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Judson, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz and de Grandpré, JJ.

June 26, 1975.

Summary:

This case arose out of an attempt by United States citizens to purchase land in Prince Edward Island. The United States citizens were refused permission to purchase the land by the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council pursuant to s. 3 of the Real Property Act. S. 3 of the Real Property Act required that nonresidents of Prince Edward Island acquire the permission of the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council in order to purchase land in excess of 10 acres. The proposed purchasers commenced an action for a declaration that s. 3 of the Real Property Act was beyond the legislative competence of the Province of Prince Edward Island because it was legislation respecting "naturalization and aliens", a federal power pursuant to s. 91(25) of the British North America Act 1867. The Prince Edward Island Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiff's action and held that s. 3 was valid provincial legislation because it was legislation in relation to property and civil rights in a province pursuant to s. 92(13) of the British North America Act 1867 - see 5 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 129.

On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada the appeal dismissed and the judgment of the Prince Edward Island Court of Appeal was affirmed. The Supreme Court of Canada reviewed the scope of the federal power respecting aliens and citizens in the context of the Prince Edward Island statute. The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the federal power respecting aliens and naturalized citizens did not give such persons immunity from a regulatory statute respecting land ownership such as that enacted by the Province of Prince Edward Island. The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Prince Edward Island statute was valid provincial legislation respecting property and civil rights.

Constitutional Law - Topic 6400

Enumeration in s. 91 of the British North America Act 1867 - Naturalization and aliens - Citizenship - The Supreme Court of Canada reviewed the scope of the federal power respecting aliens and citizens in the context of a Prince Edward Island statute which restricted the quantity of land which may be owned by nonresidents of Prince Edward Island - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Prince Edward Island statute was valid legislation respecting property and civil rights.

Constitutional Law - Topic 7226

Enumeration in s. 92 of the British North America Act 1867 - Property and civil rights - Ownership of land - The Province of Prince Edward Island by statute restricted the quantity of land which may be owned by nonresidents of Prince Edward Island - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the statute was intra vires the Province of Prince Edward Island - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the federal power respecting aliens and naturalized citizens did not give such persons immunity from the regulatory statutes respecting land such as that enacted by the Province of Prince Edward Island.

Cases Noticed:

Winner v. S.M.T. (Eastern) Ltd., [1951] S.C.R. 887, folld. [para. 10].

Union Colliery Co. v. Bryden, [1899] A.C. 580, refd to. [para. 10].

Cunningham v. Tomey Homma, [1903] A.C. 151, refd to. [para. 10].

Walter v. Attorney General of Alberta, [1969] S.C.R. 383, folld. [para. 13].

Quong-Wing v. The King (1914), 49 S.C.R. 440, refd to. [para. 21].

Brooks-Bidlake & Whittall Ltd. v. Attorney General of British Columbia, [1923] A.C. 450, refd to. [para. 22].

Attorney General of British Columbia v. Attorney General of Canada, [1924] A.C. 203, refd to. [para. 23].

Statutes Noticed:

British North America Act 1867, sect. 91(25), sect. 92(13).

Real Property Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1951, c. 138. sect. 3 [para. 3].

Canadian Citizenship Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-19, sect. 24(1) [para. 7].

Counsel:

Bernard Chernos, Q.C., Allan K. Scales, Q.C., and Richard N. Poole, for the appellants;

Maurice H. Fyfe, Q.C., and Wendell MacKay, Q.C., for the respondent;

G.W. Ainslie, Q.C., and Barbara Reed, for the A.G. of Canada;

M. Manning, for the A.G. of Ontario;

Ross Goodwin, for the A.G. of Quebec;

J.W. Kavanagh, Q.C., for the A.G. of Nova Scotia;

David Norman and Richard P. Burns, for the A.G. of New Brunswick;

Brian F. Squair and Robert Houston, for the A.G. of Manitoba;

D.H. Vickers and M.H. Smith, for the A.G. of British Columbia;

K. Lysyk, Q.C., for the A.G. of Saskatchewan;

William Henkel, Q.C., for the A.G. of Alberta;

W.G. Burke-Robertson, Q.C., for the A.G. of Newfoundland.

This appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada on February 10, 11, 12 and 13, 1975. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered on June 26, 1975.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered by LASKIN, C.J.C.