Attorney General of British Columbia v. Canadian Pacific Railway Co

Attorney General of British Columbia v. Canadian Pacific Railway Co

Majority held s.3 of the Fuel-oil Tax Act ultra vires because the tax imposed on the 'first purchaser' is not a direct tax under s.92(2) of the B.N.A. Act — its ultimate incidence was uncertain and, in ordinary circumstances, would be passed on to consumers — therefore the provincial statute exceeded provincial...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1927] SCR 185
Parties
Appellant (plaintiff): Attorney General of British Columbia; Respondent (defendant): Canadian Pacific Railway Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 February 1927
Procedural Posture
Appeal — Constitutional Challenge to Provincial Taxation / On Appeal From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia to the Supreme Court of Canada
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia affirmed
Legal Topics
Direct Tax, Indirect Tax, Excise Duties, Provincial Taxation Powers, First Purchaser Rule, B.n.a. Act S.92(2)
Source Language
english
Constitutional Law Taxation Administrative Law Direct Tax Indirect Tax Excise Duties Provincial Taxation Powers First Purchaser Rule +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attorney General of British Columbia

Appellant (plaintiff)

Canadian Pacific Railway Company

Respondent (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Appeal — Constitutional Challenge to Provincial Taxation / On Appeal From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia to the Supreme Court of Canada

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Validity of British Columbia Fuel-oil Tax Act 1923 c.71 s.3
  2. 2 Whether the tax is a direct tax within s.92(2) of the B.N.A. Act
  3. 3 Whether the tax is an excise prohibited by s.122/Terms of Union

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held s.3 of the Fuel-oil Tax Act ultra vires because the tax imposed on the 'first purchaser' is not a direct tax under s.92(2) of the B.N.A. Act — its ultimate incidence was uncertain and, in ordinary circumstances, would be passed on to consumers — therefore the provincial statute exceeded provincial taxation power; Court of Appeal judgment affirmed (Idington J. dissenting).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs