|
''Hodge v R'' is a famous Privy Council decision on interpreting the Constitution of Canada. This was the first time the doctrine of double aspect was applied to division of powers analysis. ==Background== Under the ''Liquor Licence Act''〔''Liquor Licence Act'', R.S.O. 1877, c. 181〕 (known as the "Crooks Act" after Adam Crooks), the Legislative Assembly of Ontario delegated authority to the License Commissioners of Toronto to pass a resolution that prohibited the use of billiard tables during any time when the sale of alcohol was permitted. Archibald Hodge was licensed to sell liquor in his tavern, and was also licensed to operate a billiard saloon. In May 1881, he was convicted of allowing a billiard table to be used during the hours authorized for selling liquor. He sued in the Court of Queen's Bench to have the conviction quashed, on the grounds that: #the resolution of the License Commissioners was illegal and unauthorized, #the License Commissioners had no authority to pass such a resolution, and #the ''Liquor Licence Act'' was ''ultra vires'' provincial jurisdiction. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Hodge v R」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|