ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ALBERTA Vs. GENERAL OF CANADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this matter consolidated appeals by the Attorney - General of Alberta and the Attorney - General of Canada respectively are brought before the Board from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Alberta (Appellate Division) to which, by the Order of the Lieutenant - Governor in Council of Alberta, the question of the validity of 'The Alberta Bill of Eights Act' (chap. 2 of 1946) had been referred. The Supreme Court decided that Part II of the Act was invalid inasmuch as the Alberta Legislature had no power to make a law in relation to the subject of 'Banking' which is part of head 15 of the enumerated classes of subjects which S. 91, British North America Act, exclusively assigned to the Parliament of Canada. The Supreme Court also held that Part I of the Act was intra vires of the Alberta Legislature and did not pronounce that the Act was invalid as a whole. The reasons for the judgment of the Supreme Court of Alberta were given by Hirvey C. J. A., and were concurred in unanimously by the rest of the Court which consisted of Ford J. A., O'Connor J. A., Macdonald J. A. and Parlee J. A.

(2.) The Attorney - General of Alberta contended before the Board that part 2 was not legislation relating to 'Banking' within the meaning of head 15 of S. 91 but was in pith and substance legislation relating to 'Property and civil rights in the Province' (head 18 of S. 92). The Attorney - General of Canada contended that the decision of the Supreme Court of Alberta that Part II of the Act was invalid was correct and should be upheld, while in the cross - appeal he urged that the rest of the Act was not severable from Part II with the result that the whole Act was invalid. The Canadian Bankers' Association which was respondent 2 in the appeal of the Attorney - General of Alberta appeared before their Lordships to assist in upholding the decision of the Supreme Court as to part 2 of the Act.

(3.) Their Lordships have therefore two questions before them, first, as to the validity of Part II of the Act, and, secondly, if part II is held to be invalid, whether part I of the Act none the less survives as severable and effective legislation.