Anglin J, joined by Davies CJ and Mignault J considered the Acts to be intra vires and repeated the observation he had previously made in the Insurance Act Reference: When a matter primarily of civil rights has attained such dimensions that it affects the body politic of the Dominion and has become of national concern it has in that aspect of it, not only ceased to be "local and provincial" but has also lost its character as a matter of "civil rights in the province" and has thus so far ceased to be subject to provincial jurisdiction that Dominion legislation upon it under the "peace, order and good government" provision does not trench upon the exclusive provincial field and is, therefore, valid and paramount.

I am not convinced that it is a proper application of the reasoning to be found in the judgments on the subject of the drink legislation, to draw from it conclusions which would justify Parliament in any conceivable circumstance forcing upon a province a system of nationalization of industry.

Haldane's statement as to the nature of the criminal law power was later described by Lord Atkin in Proprietary Articles Trade Association v. Attorney General of Canada[8] as not being a definition.

Instead, it was held to be "the criminal law in its widest sense," including the ability to make new crimes, and the only relevant standard to apply is whether the act would attract penal consequences.

In addition, while the matter of the trade and commerce power did not need to be decided in that case, the Board declared that it wished to dissociate themselves from Haldane's previous comment: "No such restriction is properly to be inferred from that judgment."