Winner v SMT (Eastern) Ltd

Content sourced from Wikipedia, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

Winner v SMT (Eastern) Ltd is a Privy Council decision from 1954 that clarified which level of government governs interstate and international bus services in Canada.

Facts
- Israel Winner operated a Boston–Glace Bay bus service under federal authority for the Boston–Calais, Maine portion. He sought authority from New Brunswick to operate in the province.
- The New Brunswick Motor Carrier Board granted a permit but attached a condition: Winner could not pick up or drop off passengers inside New Brunswick.
- S.M.T. (Eastern) Limited held a New Brunswick permit permitting travel from Saint Stephen to Saint John toward the Nova Scotia border.
- Winner argued the Board had no power to impose the condition or to prohibit intraprovincial passenger pickups. SMT Eastern asked the Supreme Court of New Brunswick (Appellant Division) for an injunction.

Lower courts
- The NB Chancery Division delayed ruling pending questions to the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division answered, and Winner appealed.
- In an 8–1 decision, the Appellate Division held that Winner could pick up and drop off passengers on international or interprovincial journeys, but not for purely intraprovincial trips. Rand J noted that the New Brunswick Act and Regulation did not prohibit Winner and that many of the Board’s conditions were beyond provincial power.
- The Attorney General of Ontario sought leave to appeal the part dealing with intraprovincial traffic, and Winner cross-appealed against the intraprovincial restriction. The appeal was dismissed, and the cross-appeal was allowed.

Privy Council ruling
- Lord Porter held that the case fell within the category of works and undertakings that fall under federal jurisdiction. Winner’s business connected New Brunswick with Maine and Nova Scotia, creating a single interprovincial/ international undertaking.
- A province may regulate roads, but such regulation cannot interfere with or sterilize a federally regulated undertaking. The key issue is the undertaking itself, not the roads.
- As a result, Winner’s business was within federal jurisdiction, and the decision effectively placed all commercial interprovincial and international motor vehicle traffic under federal control.

Significance
- The ruling established that interprovincial and international motor traffic is under federal jurisdiction.
- Rand J.’s obiter remarks on mobility rights contributed to later Canadian constitutional and citizenship jurisprudence, influencing how mobility rights were understood in Canada.