Another Statute of last session, entitled "The Temiskaming Courts Act," is a virtual amendment to "The County Courts Act," though not so declared. It provides for quarterly sittings of the District Court at Cochrane, presumably in addition to the regular sittings at Haileybury prescribed by section 16 of the Act. It also compels the District Judge to hold chambers at Cochrane at least once a month, and provides for his holding District Judge's Criminal Court while holding District Court or Chambers. It further provides for the appointment of a Deputy Clerk of the District Court, who shall be also Local Registrar of the Supreme Court for the territory comprised in the electoral District of Cochrane. Finally it provides for non-jury sittings of the Supreme Court at Cochrane twice a year, and requires the Sheriff of Temiskaming to appoint a Deputy, who shall reside at Cochrane. While this legislation is only of local interest, still if it is not intended merely as a prelude to the erection of a new Temporary Judicial District, it may become a precedent for further requests for the decentralization of legal business in other Districts, and even in the larger counties or unions of counties.

Ottawa.

The

Canadian Law Times.

VOL. XLI. TORONTO, NOVEMBER, 1921.

No. 11

EDITORIAL.

Trust Company Law.

The Trust Company in Canada is something of a public institution; and as such it should have at least an approximation to uniformity of status and powers in the several Provinces. At present it is devoid of that essential ingredient of public service, co-operation and success. In this respect it is in a worse condition than the ordinary Corporation or incorporated Company; for most of the Companies Acts of the Provinces are based upon the corresponding English Act, and except as to their objects all of the Companies formed under them are controlled by well-nigh uniform laws.

For the Trust Company there is no such fundamental standard; and consequently its legislative architecture is highly diversified.

Some of our leading Trust Companies are incorporated by special Acts of Parliament or of Provincial Legislatures; and though they may, to some extent, be governed by general Acts, yet they are in many ways each a law unto itself.

Some of the Trust Companies are invested with the Banking function of receiving money on deposit, withdrawable by cheque or otherwise on demand. If such a function is conferred by enactment of the Parliament of Canada it is probably legal, but there is one Province at least whose Trust Companies are accorded this function or power by enactment of the Provincial Legislature. Such an enactment cannot be other than ultra vires; and all operations under it are illegal.

VOL. XLI. C.L.T.-43

So long as nothing goes amiss the defect never transpires and it works no injury. But a catastrophe may occur such as befell the Dominion Trust Company, and then woeful is the result. We doubt, at the moment of writing, whether in spite of the appalling wrong wrought by the Dominion Trust Company in illegally receiving money on deposit withdrawable by cheque on demand, the Provincial Act of 1914, which conferred this power upon all Trust Companies registering under it, is not still in full force and operation in British Columbia. If it is, it is high time it was repealed.

Not only should Trust Company law be uniform, but the Companies should have a uniformity of scope and objects. There is no reason for a diversity of these such as exists in mercantile or commercial or manufacturing Companies. Every Trust Company need not necessarily exercise all its powers; and there could easily be devised a statutory plan by which it would be obliged to elect in a way ascertainable by the public which of its powers it would put into operation. If it desired to change its election, it should be entitled to do so provided the change was made in a public manner so that there could be no deceit or misunder-standing.

Trust Companies ought to be confined to their strict function-Trust business. They should be rigidly excluded from the speculative arena, and to my mind it is a debatable problem whether they should be allowed the privilege of lending money of their own on mortgages or other securities. This department of finance is more or less-often a great deal more than less speculative; and if a Trust Company is empowered to lend money of its own, it assuredly ought to be compelled to keep its Trust business and its Lending business completely apart so that by no misadventure could money in its hands for Trust purposes be jeopardized. One of the duties of a Trust Company is undoubtedly investing money placed in its control for that purpose; but in this respect it is governed by the general Law of Trustees or by the

Trust instrument under which it acts, or by both of these in combination.

The Trust Company should be controlled by a Government Department in each Province, and should be obliged to give specified guarantees for the faithful administration of its Trusts. To this Department annual or semi-annual returns ought to be made and verified, or checked by a reliable official. The returns in each Province would be of Trust funds received and invested there. This would avoid any multiplication of work.

With these preliminary remarks I would suggest that members of the Legal Profession in the various Provinces should contribute to the C. L. T. their views on the unification of the Trust Company Law throughout the Dominion so that a general plan of cooperation may be formulated and then put into operation for achieving this great consummation.

Parliamentary Divorce.

We desire to draw attention to a Letter written by Mr. R. V. Sinclair, K.C., which appeared in the last issue the conjoint issue for August and September; and to state that an Editorial on the subject was inadvertently omitted. The Editorial, however, merely stated what we now repeat, that is is not the intention of the Editor of the C. L. T. to attempt any reply to the interesting and important questions raised by Mr. Sinclair until his views have received at least two months' circulation and discussion. Before this period has passed this momentous problem of the Legality of Parliamentary Divorce will surely have evoked expressions of opinion either for or against the views propounded by the Editor, that the system is without legal sanction, and is in fact illegal.

We have published Mr. Sinclair's letter specially with the object of getting candid opinions from both sides. These opinions we propose to publish in the interest of the profession as well as of the public.

The validity of the system has been impugned, not merely from a general standpoint, but from every angle of the structure surrounding it.

If the attack succeeds and the system is condemned then there will have resulted a social imbroglio which will require authority, skill and judgment to rectify and redress. In other words a National Crime will have been perpetrated. And what a Crime!

The attack, it should be said, has not been made merely to demolish the system; but rather for the purpose of forcing the Parliament of Canada to exercise its exclusive authority to enact an All-Canadian Divorce Law in which many of the deficiencies and many of the controversial conundrums of the English Divorce System may be rectified and put at rest. Among others of these we may mention the rights of women as distinct from men. They should be equalized. Then there is the question of alimony. This should be solved. And there is the question of domicile; and this should be governed, not by the conception of the Province, but of the Dominion as an entity. Residence does not necessarily mean domicile; but if the parties were domiciled anywhere in Canada, then residence of the party sued in any Province should confer Jurisdiction on the Courts of the Province. The idea surely is preposterous of an Ontario man who married and lived for years there, going to one of the Western Provinces which have Divorce Law in operation, and ousting the jurisdiction of the Court, where perhaps he was living for years, by saying "my domicile is Ontario; you cannot touch me even though I violate every part of the marriage contract. My intention is to return to Ontario, though I may not do so till I am 80 years old. Till then I defy your Divorce Law in the West."

When I mention Ontario I may say that that Province is the greatest patron of the system of Parliamentary Divorce; and we invite and we will expect as a consequence of Mr. Sinclair's letter, a full and candid expression of opinion from the members of the Profession there, and especially from those whose practice has brought them into contact with Divorce Law and procedure.