City of Winnipeg v. Barrett

Canada admitted Manitoba as a province under the Manitoba Act of 1870 (the Manitoba Act). The Manitoba Act gave the legislature exclusive control over education but prohibited any law that prejudicially affected education privileges or rights existing in law or practice regarding denominational schools. At the time of Manitoba’s admission, no public schools were provided or financially supported by the state. Instead, the schools were nonsecular and taught in English (Protestant) or French (Roman Catholic). In 1890, the City of Winnipeg (the city) (defendant) passed the Public Schools Act, a law that would tax all citizens in support of schools but required that all government-supported schools teach classes in English. John Kelly Barrett (plaintiff) challenged the Public Schools Act as a violation of the Manitoba Act. The city contended that because no public schools existed at the time of Manitoba’s admission as a province, no laws regarding education were in place, and, therefore, no existing educational privileges or rights could be infringed. The Canada Supreme Court held that despite no educational laws being in place at the time of Manitoba’s admission, the practice was an educational system taught by Protestant schools in English and Roman Catholic schools in French. The city’s Public School Act disrupted the existing system to the prejudice of French Canadiens and, therefore, was ultra vires. The city appealed to Canada’s Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.