Canadian Appeals to the Privy Council
25
One may distinctly see,
Shows, to the meeting’s purposes, Direct hostility; E’en though, if carried, the debate It would abruptly end
By forcing him to leave the chair, And to an impasse tend. Let these few rules your conduct guide, And ever bear in mind (No doubt superfluous advice), Be courteous, firm but kind. Perth, Western Australia.
Canadian Appeals to the Privy Council IT
is not often that dissatisfaction with the present system of appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council expresses itself in Canada. In fact,
such
dissatisfaction
can
hardly
be said to exist, in any general sense.
The Judicial Committee has always been careful not to interfere in matters
declaring that the Privy Council should not interfere "with judgments of courts of last resort in the colonies in cases of minor importance, such as Gordon v.
Home,” charges
that in
this case,
not yet reported, the Judicial Com mittee “reversed the decision of the trial judge upon a pure question of fact,
where its meddling might give offense
which decision had been affirmed by a
to Canadians, and not only in Canada but in other parts of the British Empire,
majority
its position as the final arbiter of the gamer questions of a constitutional nature rests rather upon the voluntary demand for an imperial tribunal of last resort than upon any forcible
assertion of its prerogatives. The conse quence is that if it attempted to meddle
of
the
Supreme
Court
of
Canada (42 S. C. R. 240)." There is, in fact, something in the very cocksureness of this criticism which shakes one's credulity. What is charged is nothing less than a deviation from the policy which the Privy Council has steadily pursued, and it is difficult to believe that the decision in question
in matters of purely local concern it
was as plain a case of "reversal upon a
would soon find itself divested of the
pure issue of fact” as represented. Indeed, Mr. Deacon has been an
jurisdiction which it now exercises. One Canadian writer, however, now comes forward to object vigorously to the action of the Judicial Committee
in disposing of an appeal from the Supreme Court of Canada. In a com munication published in two Canadian
swered in an intelligent, fair editorial
in the Canada Law journal which probably disposes finally of this con troversy. This reply brings out one very important circumstance, namely, that the Privy Council held an opinion
Deacon,
of the facts similar to that of the Supreme Court of British Columbia,
‘BOL'anadian Law Tim: 875 (Nov). 46 Canada ml” a; 590 (Nov. 15).
though it reversed the Supreme Court
Law journals,1
Mr.
W.
S.
