| Winner v SMT (Eastern) Ltd | |
| Court: | Judicial Committee of the Privy Council |
| Date Decided: | 22 February 1954 |
| Citations: | 1954 UKPC 8 |
| Judges: | Lord Porter, Lord Oaksey, Lord Tucker, Lord Asquith of Bishopstone and Lord Cohen |
| Number Of Judges: | 5 |
| Decision By: | Lord Porter |
| Prior Actions: | Winner v. S.M.T. (Eastern) Ltd.. 1951. scc. 2. canlii. [1951] SCR 887. 22 October 1951., reversing a decision of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick, Appeal Division, (1950) 26 MPR 27 |
| Appealed From: | Supreme Court of Canada |
Winner v SMT (Eastern) Ltd[1] is the last case of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council that affected Canadian constitutional jurisprudence.[2] The Supreme Court of Canada case, from which it arose, is also notable for summarizing the essence of Canadian citizenship.
Israel Winner (operating as Mackenzie Coach Lines) operated a bus service between Boston and Glace Bay, Nova Scotia. In addition to authority granted by the Interstate Commerce Commission for that part of the service from Boston to Calais, Maine, he applied to the New Brunswick Motor Carrier Board for authority to operate his service in that province. The Board issued a permit, subject to the condition that Winner would not pick up or drop off any passengers within the province. S.M.T. (Eastern) Limited was a New Brunswick company that held a permit from the Board that entitled it to carry passengers from Saint Stephen, New Brunswick via Saint John to the Nova Scotia border.
Winner contended that the Board did not have the authority to attach such a condition to his permit, and it also did not have the power to prevent him from picking up and dropping off passengers travelling within the province. S.M.T. (Eastern) Limited applied to the Supreme Court of New Brunswick, Chancery Division, for an injunction restraining such activity.
Hughes J of the Chancery Division declined to issue an injunction until the Appellate Division gave him answers to the following questions:
The Appellate Division answered thus:
Winner appealed.
Appeal was allowed. In an 8–1 decision the Court held that Winner was entitled to pick up and drop off passengers that were on an international or interprovincial journey, but not with regard to journeys between points within the province.
For his part, Rinfret CJ answered that the New Brunswick Act and Regulation did not prohibit Winner's operations, and the conditions that the Board had attached to its permit were ultra vires.
In his opinion, Rand J. observed that citizens were free to move across provincial borders and live wherever they chose to, and only the federal government could limit this right:
The Attorney General of Ontario sought leave to appeal the part of the decision that allowed the picking up and dropping of passengers in the province, whether the journey began or ended inside or outside the province. Winner cross-appealed against the prohibition of purely intraprovincial traffic.
The appeal was dismissed, and the cross-appeal was allowed. In his opinion, Lord Porter held that this case fell within the same scope as that of the Radio Reference in determining the nature of works and undertakings and under which jurisdiction they fall. As Winner was carrying on an undertaking connecting New Brunswick with both Nova Scotia and Maine, there exists an undertaking connecting province with province and beyond the limits of the province. Therefore, it was an undertaking that fell within federal jurisdiction, and it was one and indivisible.
It was also argued that the province could regulate who could use its roads. While the Board agreed that such jurisdiction did exist, it was limited and could not interfere with connecting undertakings. As Lord Porter declared:
Winner effectively placed all commercial interprovincial and international motor vehicle traffic under federal jurisdiction.
Rand J's comments relating to mobility rights of Canadians, while obiter in this case, have significantly affected Canadian jurisprudence.