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:

I will point out the distinction between the two cases. In the Belanger case it was still open to the courts to consider the question of amount. The difficulty here is that there having been an award, unless we can find some illegality or some irregularity to set that award aside it is not possible for us to go into the question of value; all the courts have held that we cannot do that. We took advice as to making a further appeal to the Privy Council, but we were advised against taking that course. There is the position in which we find ourselves. I do not want to discuss these statements about the Yamaska election; I know nothing about them. In fact, all this was before anybody was thinking about a Yamaska election; the final judgment was rendered in 1920 before the sitting member died.

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:

Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to take up the time of the committee discussing whether there would be any advantage in not dealing with the case now, but I should like to lay before the committee the simple facts as established by the records of three successive courts, and to point out what is the question involved. I think that when the hon. gentleman has realized that he will appreciate that his discussion about land "graft" is not pertinent to the question as it arises in the position in which the Harbour Commission of Quebec and the Government of Canada now stand.

The history of this case is that the Harbour Commission did-and this is not disputed-take possession of a property be-onging to this Park St. Charles Company, or which they claimed to be their property.

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

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