Significant lawsuits of New Brunswick are described, if not elsewhere, here (in chronological order). Consolidations of statute law were published in 1854, 1877, 1903, 1927, 1952, and 1973. A useful "Index to the Private Acts of the Province of New Brunswick, 1929-2012" exists at the New Brunswick branch of the Canadian Bar Association.nb-cba.org: "Index to the Private Acts of the Province of New Brunswick, 1929-2012" For early history, see the series published by the Carswell Company: Reports of Cases Determined by the Supreme Court of New Brunswick.
Gesner v Cairns (1852)
Gesner maintained that Cairns trespassed the property leased by the former, felled trees on it, spoliated it and expropriated 1,000 tons of valuable material. Gesner maintained the material to be asphaltum, while Cairns was a coal miner. The defendant was evidently permitted to mine coal, not asphaltum. The evidence presented to the jury was of a technical nature and regarded the nature of the material. The defendant won the day.
Maher v Town Council of Portland (1874)
Maher v Town Council of Portland tested the constitutional guarantees for denominational schools set out in section 93 of the British North America Act 1867. The issue was whether the Common Schools Act of 1871 infringed the guarantee of denominational schools set out in section 93(1).
Dow v Black (1875)
Dow v Black was one of the first major cases examining in detail the division of powers between the federal Parliament and the provincial Legislatures, set out in s. 91 and s. 92 of the British North America Act 1867.
The Caraquet Riots (1876)
The Caraquet Riots of 1875 stemmed from the Common Schools Act of 1871. The francophone Catholic clergy was hostile to the Act, which forbade religious instruction in New Brunswick schools. The local priest in Caraquet, Joseph Pelletier, and local representative to the Legislative Assembly, 31-year-old Théotime Blanchard, were responsible for the Catholic protest stratagem to withhold tax monies and to disregard local elections to the school board. In the British North American system of government, education and the school boards were purely a local concern, with the province supplementing locally determined budgets. Certain Protestants in Caraquet held to the system as directed by the Crown and went ahead with the scheme of the Act. The Catholic stratagem of electoral noncompliance, which was perceived as dereliction, was singularly unsuccessful and led directly to the riots, and subsequent violent death in the same incident of one Catholic protester and one police constable. In the aftermath, the riot was adjudicated as R v Mailloux et al., while the murder of the constable was reported as R v Chiasson.
The convictions were appealed to the New Brunswick Court of Appeal in early 1876. The verdicts were upheld in the matter of the riot, but later vacated due to the lapse of time between incident and conviction. The conviction of Chiasson was vacated on a number of grounds.
Russell v R (1882)
Russell v R is a landmark Privy Council decision regarding the interpretation of the British North America Act 1867, and was one of the first cases explaining the nature of the peace, order and good government power in Canadian federalism. Specifically, it dealt with the powers of Parliament to delegate authority, in this case under the Canada Temperance Act, to, in this instance, municipal councils.
R v Robertson (1882)
The federal government attempted to sell a fishery lease on the Miramichi River. At issue was the locus of jurisdiction. Section 91(12) of the Constitution Act, 1867, assigns to the federal Parliament at Ottawa exclusive legislative authority over Sea Coast and Inland Fisheries. Although it was initially believed that the federal government had exclusive jurisdiction over all fisheries throughout Canada, it was found here that section 91(12) did not have the effect of transferring ownership of the beds of freshwater rivers and lakes to the federal government. The fisheries authority vested in Parliament ends where provincial authority over property and civil rights begins, unless an encroachment is essential to the effectiveness of federal legislation. Under ancient British fisheries law, rights to fish in tidal waters were of a fundamentally different legal character from rights to fish in inland or non-tidal waters. The former were public rights vested in the Crown as parens patriae for the use of the public and could have no new private owner after Magna Charta. The latter, which were the subject of property, required an owner and could not be vested in the public generally. In determining the respective jurisdictions of Parliament and the provinces, the court seized on the distinction between fishing as a public right and fishing as a proprietary right. In the Provincial Fisheries Reference, A.C. 700 (P.C.) the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council distinguished between rights of property and legislative jurisdiction, holding that section 91 conferred the latter on the federal Parliament and that only the provinces were competent to deal with the private right of fisheries in inland waters under section 92(5), Management and Sale of Public Lands, or under section 92(13), Property and Civil Rights. Since such "legislation deals directly with property, its disposal, and the rights to be enjoyed in respect of it", it does not fall under section 91(12). As a result, the Province was entitled to allocate the resource; that is, to decide who may fish, how much may be harvested per person, and where the harvesting may occur. It could do this through the issuing of licences, through its own legislation and through property transactions. The federal government retained the right in inland waters to preserve, protect and manage the fisheries. This included the right to set the maximum amount of fish to be harvested, and to impose gear restrictions and limitations on locations. The federal government also retained the right to legislate with respect to the protection of fish habitat and waters frequented by fish. Despite the federal Parliament's inability to legislate respecting property and civil rights, the Privy Council in the Provincial Fisheries Reference made it clear that if federal legislation is truly legislation respecting fisheries it may powerfully affect proprietary rights.dfo-mpo.gc.ca: "A Practical Guide to the Fisheries Act and to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act"canlii.org: "The Queen v. Robertson, 6 SCR 52, 1882 CanLII 25 (SCC)"
The result of this case was profound. The 25th New Brunswick Legislature passed The Fisheries ActAn Act to regulate the Leasing of the Fishery Rights in the non-tidal waters pertaining to the Crown as Riparian Proprietor of ungranted Crown Lands, and for the Protection of the Fisheries, Acts 1884 c.1 and An Act to provide for the Survey, Reservation and Protection of Lumber Lands.Acts 1884 c.7 The latter Act created the idea of a private fishing reserve, let from the provincial Crown, and protected by game wardens who had the power to commence the process of gaoling offenders.
Maritime Bank Liquidators v New Brunswick (1889)
This case decided that the (Provincial) Crown was entitled to superior status in monies on demand deposit with respect to other creditors in the liquidation of a bank. Lord Watson:"new)+AND+(brunswick") "The Liquidators of the Maritime bank of Canada v The Receiver General of New Brunswick (Canada) UKPC 34 (2 July 1892)"
AG v AG (1904)
With the accession to the Dominion of several new provinces after 1900, the Attorneys-General of New Brunswick and of Prince Edward Island had suit against the AG Canada for interpretations disfavourable to their electors."new)+AND+(brunswick") bailii.org: "The Attorney General for the Province of Prince Edward Island v The Attorney General for the Dominion of Canada (Canada) UKPC 66 (4 November 1904)" and "new)+AND+(brunswick") bailii.org: "The Attorney General for the Province of New Brunswick v The Attorney General for the Dominion of Canada (Canada) [1904 UKPC 67 (4 November 1904) "]
Saint John Pilot Commissioners v Cumberland Railway (1909)
Whether the Cumberland Railway and Coal Company were liable to the predations of the Saint John Pilot Commissioners was the case in issue here."new)+AND+(brunswick") bailii.org: "The St. John Pilot Commissioners and The Attorney General for the Dominion of Canada v The Cumberland Railway and Coal Company (Canada) UKPC 50 (28 October 1909)"
R v Marsh, Ex parte Walker (1909)
In R v Marsh, Ex parte Walker (1909), 39 NBR 329, the defendant was a station agent of the Intercolonial Railway at Fredericton. He was convicted under the Canada Temperance Act of an offence of warehousing and keeping for delivery a quantity of intoxicating liquor brought into the railway station by the Intercolonial Railway, while acting as a servant of the railway, a public work owned and operated by the Crown in right of Canada. It was held that the Crown, not being expressly mentioned in the Canada Temperance Act, was not bound thereby and therefore its station agent, acting in the course of his duty, could not be convicted of the offence.
Inglewood v NB Power (1928)
Inglewood v NB Power, in which the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council affirmed the judgment of the NB Supreme Court, dealt with the interest payable on expropriation, and whether or not the loss of game to hunt were actionable.bailii.org: "The Inglewood Pulp and paper Company Limited (Appeal Nos. 147 and 148 of 1927) v The New Brunswick Electric Power Commission (New Brunswick) 1928 UKPC 72 (20 July 1928)"
King v Assessors of Bathurst County (1928)
The issue of whether or not school taxes levied by a county were payable by an employer of significant size was the subject of King v Assessors of Bathurst County, ex parte Bathurst Company Ltd. The King (in effect, the corporation) asked whether the county was right to assess taxes in the amount it did. The court answered in the affirmative but several months later the corporation began velvet blackmail and the government caved and brought in new legislation.
R v LeBlanc (1930)
In R v LeBlanc (1930), 1 MPR 21, acting in obedience to his instructions, a road supervisor stored dynamite belonging to the Crown in the right of the Province of New Brunswick contrary to the Explosives Act, RSC 1927, c. 62, an Act not made binding on the provincial Crown. The conviction of the Crown's servant, acting in the course of his employment which was the construction of a public work, was set aside. The servant was held excluded from the provisions of the Explosives Act as was his employer, the Crown.
Pitre v R (1932)
This 1932 Supreme Court of Canada decision confirmed the re-trial of Pitre, who was tried for murder, because of the error of the trial judge, upon the latter's misdirection of the jury.