## Facts

- Canada’s Parliament created the Supreme Court of Canada by statute and authorized the Governor General in Council to refer legal questions to the Court for an advisory opinion, including constitutional questions.
- The Governor General in Council submitted constitutional questions concerning provincial powers and related federal authority to seek advisory rulings.
- Ontario (supported by other provincial interests) objected, arguing the federal “reference” provisions were beyond Parliament’s power and interfered with provincial autonomy.
- The Supreme Court of Canada entertained the reference and provided an opinion, effectively rejecting Ontario’s jurisdictional objection.
- Ontario appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, then Canada’s final appellate tribunal, challenging the constitutionality of the reference procedure itself.

## Issues

1. Whether Parliament had constitutional authority to confer on the Supreme Court of Canada an advisory “reference” jurisdiction to answer abstract legal and constitutional questions posed by the executive.
2. Whether the reference procedure improperly altered the judicial function or infringed provincial legislative autonomy or citizens’ rights.

## Decision

- The Privy Council dismissed Ontario’s appeal and upheld the federal reference provisions.
- Parliament could validly authorize the Governor General in Council to refer legal and constitutional questions to the Supreme Court of Canada for an advisory opinion, even absent a traditional dispute between parties.
- The reference procedure did not, by itself, encroach on provincial legislative powers or render the Supreme Court’s role non-judicial.

## Legal Principles

- Constitutional authority to establish a national “general court of appeal” includes authority to define the court’s jurisdiction, including advisory jurisdiction by reference.
- Advisory opinions on referred questions can be consistent with judicial power where the court applies judicial methods (hearing submissions, applying legal authority, giving reasons), even without a lis inter partes.
- A reference mechanism is procedural and does not alter the substantive division of powers; it does not confer new legislative competence on the federal government over provincial matters.
- Concerns about effects on private rights do not invalidate reference jurisdiction because ordinary litigation remains available to contest the application of constitutional rules in concrete disputes.

## Conclusion

The Privy Council sustained the constitutionality of Canada’s federal reference procedure, holding that Parliament could confer advisory jurisdiction on the Supreme Court of Canada and that this mechanism neither compromised the judicial function nor infringed provincial autonomy.


Att’y Gen. for Ont. v. Att’y Gen. for Can. (Reference Appeal Case), [1912] A.C. 571 (P.C. 1912)