## Facts

- Manitoba entered Confederation under the *Manitoba Act, 1870*, which gave the provincial legislature exclusive authority over education, subject to a limit: the legislature could not pass a law that “prejudicially affect[ed] any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools which any class of persons had by law or practice in the province at the union.”
- At the time of union, Manitoba had no state-provided or state-funded public school system. Schooling occurred mainly through denominational schools associated with Protestant and Roman Catholic communities, with instruction commonly in English in Protestant schools and in French in Roman Catholic schools.
- In 1890, Manitoba enacted the *Public Schools Act, 1890*, creating a unified, publicly controlled, tax-supported school regime and ending public support for denominational schools. Government-supported schools were to teach in English.
- The City of Winnipeg imposed school rates under the 1890 legislation.
- John Kelly Barrett, a Roman Catholic ratepayer, challenged the legality of the rates by attacking the *Public Schools Act* as contrary to s. 22 of the *Manitoba Act, 1870*, arguing that the new regime harmed protected denominational school rights that existed at union.
- The City argued that because there had been no public, state-supported school regime at union, there were no protected “rights or privileges” capable of being impaired by the 1890 Act.
- Manitoba’s Court of Queen’s Bench dismissed Barrett’s challenge, finding the legislation valid.
- The Supreme Court of Canada reversed, reasoning that even without pre-union education statutes, the established pattern of denominational schooling (including French Catholic education) amounted to a protected arrangement “by practice,” and the 1890 Act harmed that arrangement.
- The City appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

## Issues

1. Whether any class of persons in Manitoba had, at union, a “right or privilege with respect to denominational schools” “by law or practice” within the meaning of s. 22 of the *Manitoba Act, 1870*.
2. If so, whether the *Public Schools Act, 1890* prejudicially affected such a protected right or privilege, making the Act beyond provincial power.
3. Whether the school rates imposed by the City of Winnipeg under the 1890 regime could stand if the Act was within provincial authority.

## Decision

- The Privy Council allowed the City of Winnipeg’s appeal.
- It held that the *Public Schools Act, 1890* was within Manitoba’s legislative authority over education and did not contravene s. 22 of the *Manitoba Act, 1870*.
- It rejected the Supreme Court of Canada’s view that the pre-union pattern of denominational schooling, without more, amounted to a protected “right or privilege” that limited the province’s power to create a uniform public system.
- Because the 1890 Act was valid, the challenge to Winnipeg’s school rates based on constitutional invalidity failed, and the Supreme Court of Canada’s judgment was reversed.

## Legal Principles

- Section 22 of the *Manitoba Act, 1870* protects only those denominational school rights or privileges that existed at union “by law or practice” in a sense that yields a legally recognizable entitlement, not merely the existence of church-run schools as a social fact.
- The presence of voluntary denominational schools at union does not, by itself, create a constitutional right to continued public recognition, public funding, or immunity from being taxed for a general public-school regime.
- A province with constitutional jurisdiction over education may establish a single, tax-supported, nonsectarian public school system unless it can be shown that the change prejudicially affects a denominational school right or privilege that was actually protected at union within the meaning of the constitutional text.
- When a claimed denominational school interest is not a protected right or privilege within the constitutional guarantee, the courts will not strike down the education statute on that basis.

## Conclusion

The Privy Council held that Manitoba’s 1890 move to a unified, tax-funded public school regime was valid because the Roman Catholic minority could not point to a denominational school “right or privilege” at union, “by law or practice,” that constitutionally required the province to preserve or finance denominational schooling; accordingly, the Supreme Court of Canada was reversed and Winnipeg’s school rates stood.


City of Winnipeg v. Barrett, [1892] AC 445 (1892)