Charles Joseph DOHERTY

DOHERTY, The Right Hon. Charles Joseph, P.C., K.C., B.C.L., LL.D.

Personal Data

Party
Unionist
Constituency
St. Ann (Quebec)
Birth Date
May 11, 1855
Deceased Date
July 28, 1931
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Doherty
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=1d093884-066e-4154-90c4-5125c80965b9&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
bank manager, judge, lawyer

Parliamentary Career

October 26, 1908 - July 29, 1911
CON
  St. Anne (Quebec)
September 21, 1911 - October 6, 1917
CON
  St. Anne (Quebec)
  • Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada (October 10, 1911 - October 11, 1917)
October 27, 1911 - October 6, 1917
CON
  St. Anne (Quebec)
  • Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada (October 10, 1911 - October 11, 1917)
December 17, 1917 - October 4, 1921
UNION
  St. Ann (Quebec)
  • Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada (October 12, 1917 - July 9, 1920)
  • Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada (July 10, 1920 - September 20, 1921)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 1 of 1242)


June 4, 1921

Mr. DOHERTY:

It is so much in the harbour, as I understand, that it constitutes principally, if not entirely, beach lots. The action was brought by the parties to recover the value of the property taken. After the case had proceeded a formal agreement was entered into to submit the question to arbitration. The arbitrator was Mr. Cyrias Pelletier, a retired judge of the Superior Court.

Topic:   SUPPLY-DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR
Subtopic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Full View Permalink

June 4, 1921

Mr. DOHERTY:

If my hon. friend will allow me, I will come to that question. This case happened to come under my personal observation, and I endeavoured to look into it so far as I was able. The award was attacked; we invoked every ground that we thought could be invoked. The ground that seemed to us to be the strongest to justify any expectation of the award being set aside was that originally in filing their claim the plaintiffs had described their property as containing a certain number of thousands of feet, and pending the proceeding they applied to the court to increase the number of feet for which their claim was made.' That was resisted, but the court allowed the amend. ment, and when the matter came before the arbitrator strong objection was taken to his considering any more than the original number of feet claimed. He ruled, however, that he was entitled to take into consideration the larger number. The case went before'the Superior Court and judgment was rendered by Mr. Justice Dorion- as eminent a judge, it would be superfluous to say, as we have in the province. Up to the time that I read the judgment by Mr. Justice Dorion I was personally confident as to the issue, but I have to confess that that confidence was dashed when I read his judgment. However, we carried the matter to the Court of Appeals of the province and they unanimously confirmed the judgment rendered by Mr. Justice Dorion. We were persistent, and-in the teeth, I may say, of the advice of Mr. Eugene Lafleur, K.C., that we were on a hopeless quest-we carried the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada, but only to get the same result.

Topic:   SUPPLY-DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR
Subtopic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Full View Permalink

June 4, 1921

Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) :

It is quite true. The hon. gentleman did make an inquiry as to whether there had been any agreement on the part of Canada with regard to the mandate for the island of Nauru. I then said my very strong impression was there had been no agreement on the subject, and in looking into the matter I find that that impression was correct-there was no agreement to which Canada was a party, with regard to the mandate for Nauru. The mandates were conferred by the principal allied and associated powers. That for Nauru was conferred upon His Majesty, designated in the mandate as His Britannic Majesty, who has undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations. The .mandate so conferred in so far as it may be considered to be conferred upon a country, is, as I understand it, conferred upon Great Britain. Canada expressed no desire to be granted a mandate for any of the countries for which mandatories were appointed.

Topic:   THE MANDATE FOR NAURU
Full View Permalink

June 4, 1921

Mr. DOHERTY:

So far as I am concerned, if any importance is attached to the time at which this item came down and if any hon. gentleman considers that, by reason of that, any useful purpose can be served by not proceeding now-of course, this is not my item; I intervene in this only because of the nature of the discussion that has arisen and only for the purpose of putting certain facts before this House in view of statements that have been made. I do not question that they are made in good faith, but I feel very strongly that they were made without adequate information.

Topic:   SUPPLY-DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR
Subtopic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Full View Permalink

June 4, 1921

Mr. DOHERTY:

I will tell the hon. gentleman why there has been delay. The reason of the delay-and in this I am speaking of my personal knowledge-is that I felt there should be a most careful examination whether there was open to us any possible method, by means of some other proceeding, to get behind that arbitration. The hon. gentleman spoke about having no participation. I had the question, notwithstanding the decision of the arbitration, of the possibility of our attacking the title with any reasonable hope of success, most carefully gone into by the law officers of the Crown. Their report to me-and their explanation, with which they accompanied that feport, seems to me to sustain it-is that there is no reason for-

Topic:   SUPPLY-DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR
Subtopic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Full View Permalink