Pith and substance is a legal doctrine in Canadian constitutional interpretation used to determine under which head of power a given piece of legislation falls. The doctrine is primarily used when a law is challenged on the basis that one level of government (be it provincial or federal) has encroached upon the exclusive jurisdiction of another level of government.
The British North America Act, 1867, which established a federal Constitution for Canada, enumerated in Sections 91 and 92 the topics on which the Dominion and the Provinces could respectively legislate. Notwithstanding that the lists were framed so as to be fairly full and comprehensive, it was not long before it was found that the topics enumerated in the two sections overlapped, and the Privy Council had time and again to pass on the constitutionality of laws made by the Dominion and Provincial legislatures. It was in this situation that the Privy Council evolved the doctrine, that for deciding whether an impugned legislation was intra vires, regard must be had to its pith and substance. That is to say, if a statute is found in substance to relate to a topic within the competence of the legislature, it should be held to be intra vires, even though it might incidentally trench on topics not within its legislative competence. The extent of the encroachment on matters beyond its competence may be an element in determining whether the legislation is colourable, that is, whether in the guise of making a law on a matter within its competence, the legislature is, in truth, making a law on a subject beyond its competence. But where that is not the position, then the fact of encroachment does not affect the vires of the law even as regards the area of encroachment. Vide Citizens Insurance Company of Canada v. William Parsons (1881) 7 AC 96; The Attorney-General for Ontario v. Attorney-General for the Dominion of Canada 1894 A.C. 189; The Attorney General of Ontario v. Attorney-General for the Dominion (1896) AC 348; Union Colliery Company of British Columbia v. Bryden (1899) AC 580; Attorney-General for Canada v. Attorney-General for Ontario (1937) AC 355; Attorney-General for Alberta V. Attorney-General for Canada (1939) AC 117 and Board of Trustees of Letherbridge Northern Irrigation District v. Independent Order of Foresters (1940) AC 513.
The analysis has two parts. First, the law at issue is characterized by its most dominant feature, and second, the law is assigned to one of the enumerated matters listed in section 91 or 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867.
Other articles related to "pith and substance, substance":
... The Pith and Substance doctrine as applied in the jurisprudence of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, effectively the British Imperial Court of Appeal, has been carried to other ... The substance of the doctrine has been cast in legislative form in the Scotland Act 1998 for the purpose of devolution to Scotland ...
Famous quotes containing the words pith and, substance and/or pith:
“Thus conscience does make cowards of us all,
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied oer with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action.”
—William Shakespeare (15641616)
“Leave everything. Leave Dada. Leave your wife. Leave your mistress. Leave your hopes and fears. Leave your children in the woods. Leave the substance for the shadow. Leave your easy life, leave what you are given for the future. Set off on the roads.”
—André Breton (18961966)
“So much of our time is preparation, so much is routine, and so much retrospect, that the pith of each mans genius contracts itself to a very few hours.”
—Ralph Waldo Emerson (18031882)