Reference Re Alberta Statutes


Reference Re Alberta Statutes, also known as the Alberta Press case and the Alberta Press Act Reference, is a landmark reference of the Supreme Court of Canada where several provincial laws, including one restricting the press, were struck down and the existence of an implied bill of rights protecting civil liberties such as a free press was first proposed.

Background

The province of Alberta, under the Social Credit government of William Aberhart had passed several laws as part of a series of reforms inspired by social credit economic theory. Arising from the 1937 Social Credit backbenchers' revolt, the Legislative Assembly of Alberta passed several acts to implement the Social Credit agenda, to which royal assent was given:
In August 1937, the federal government disallowed all three acts. The Supreme Court of Canada, in answering reference questions posed by the federal government, unanimously ruled that such disallowance was valid.
Following the disallowance, the Alberta legislature passed the following bills in October 1937:
  • Bill No. 1 Bank Taxation Act
  • Bill No. 8 Credit of Alberta Regulation Act, 1937
  • Bill No. 9 Accurate News and Information Act
All bills were reserved by Lieutenant-Governor John C. Bowen. As a result, the federal government posed reference questions to the Supreme Court as to whether it was intra vires the provincial legislature to pass any of those measures.

Appeal to the Privy Council

The Board declared that, as the Alberta Social Credit Act had been subsequently repealed by the Alberta legislature, Bills 8 and 9 could not be brought into operation, as their provisions were contingent on actions of the now-abolished Social Credit Board. Therefore, the question was moot, and they expressed no opinion on them.
As to Bill 1, the Board agreed with the opinion of Justice Patrick Kerwin that:
Accordingly, the bill was in pith and substance a measure to regulate banking, and was thus ultra vires the province.

Significance

The SCC ruling is notable because three judges supported the Implied Bill of Rights, a theory in Canadian constitutional law.