Litigations Manitoba's legislation resulted in two rounds of litigation, each going to the
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
City of Winnipeg (1891–92) The first court case,
Barrett v. City of Winnipeg (1891), The Manitoba Queen's Bench held that the new
Public Schools Act was valid. The challengers then appealed to the
Supreme Court of Canada in
Barrett v. Winnipeg (1891), which allowed the appeal and held that the 1890
Public Schools Act "transgresses the limits of the power given" by s. 22 of the
Manitoba Act. Based on the Supreme Court decision, another action was brought in the Manitoba Queen's Bench, which followed the Supreme Court decision and quashed a school tax assessment under the 1890 Act. }} The City of Winnipeg then appealed both cases to the
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in
Britain which overruled the Supreme Court and held that the 1890 Act was consistent with the
Manitoba Act. The exact point in dispute was the meaning of the phrase "...by Law or practice in the Province at the Union," used in s. 22(1) of the
Manitoba Act. The Judicial Committee held that this provision did not itself create a system of denominational schools. Rather, it gave constitutional protection to whatever rights existed with respect to denominational schools in Manitoba in 1870. The Judicial Committee reviewed the historical record and concluded that in 1870, all schools in Manitoba were funded by the religious groups which ran them, and not by any system of public taxation. As a result, the Judicial Committee concluded that s. 22(1) simply guaranteed the right of religious groups to establish and run their own schools, at their own expense. It did not guarantee any public funding for denominational schools, since there was no financial tax support for denominational schools in 1870. Taxpayer funding for denominational schools was only established after the foundation of the Province and was not guaranteed by s. 22(1) of the
Manitoba Act, 1870. The Legislature therefore could end taxpayer funding for denominational schools and instead establishing a system of taxpayer funded non-sectarian schools, without being in breach of s. 22(1).
Brophy v. Manitoba (1894) Although education is normally a matter of exclusive provincial jurisdiction under the
Constitution of Canada, there is a special power for the federal government in relation to separate schools. Section 93(3) of the
Constitution Act, 1867 provides that there is an appeal to the
Governor General in Council "from any Act or Decision of any Provincial Authority affecting any Right or Privilege of the Protestant or Roman Catholic Minority of the Queen's Subjects in relation to Education." Section 93(4) provides that if a province does not comply with a decision of the Governor-in-Council in an appeal under s. 93(3), then Parliament has the power to enact "remedial Laws for the due Execution of the Provisions of this Section and of any Decision of the Governor General in Council under this Section." Section 22 of the
Manitoba Act had similar provisions authorising an appeal to the Governor General in Council and remedial legislation by Parliament. Following the 1892 Privy Council decision in
City of Winnipeg v. Barrett, pressure arose for the federal government to take action under these provisions. However, it was not clear if the changes to the Manitoba school system set out by the 1890
Public Schools Act were sufficient to authorise the federal government to hear an appeal and to enact remedial legislation, in light of the Privy Council's conclusion that the system of taxpayer funded denominational schools which were established in the early 1870s was not constitutionally protected. To resolve this uncertainty, the federal government referred the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada as a
reference question, asking if these constitutional provisions applied. The Supreme Court held that those provisions did not apply, since the post-1870 denominational schools were not constitutionally protected. This decision was appealed to the Privy Council, which overturned the Supreme Court. The Privy Council held that when the Province had created a system of taxpayer funded denominational schools in the early 1870s, it had given a "right or privilege" to the Protestants and Roman Catholics in relation to education. Although that "right or privilege" was not constitutionally entrenched by s. 22(1) of the
Manitoba Act, the abolition of the denominational schools could be appealed to the federal government under s. 22(2) of the
Manitoba Act, and Parliament could enact remedial legislation under s. 22(3).
Political crisis in the Federal government (1894–96) The "Schools Question", as it was known, had divided the
Conservative government since 1890, and especially after Macdonald's death in 1891 when no strong leader replaced him. However, so long as education remained an exclusively provincial jurisdiction, the federal government had limited powers to intervene. In light of the Privy Council decision in
Brophy v. Manitoba, the political situation changed. The federal government now had the authority to act; the question was whether it would. In January 1896, the federal government of Prime Minister
Mackenzie Bowell introduced remedial legislation under s. 22(3) of the
Manitoba Act, 1870 in the House of Commons. However, the draft legislation was very unpopular with some members of the Conservative caucus, and its introduction triggered a political crisis. Faced with a
caucus revolt, Bowell was forced to call an election and to resign in April of that year. Following the election call, with the remedial bill not passed by Parliament,
Charles Tupper led the Conservatives in the election and became Prime Minister, though not for long. The
Liberal Party under
Wilfrid Laurier, himself a French Catholic, took on a vigorous campaign to prevent the bill from being passed before the government called another election (expected to be in June 1896). The Liberals, under Laurier, took advantage of the division in the Conservative party. Laurier, considering Québec's
Jesuits’ Estates Act—which drew significant reactions from Ontario's Orange Order—proposed what he called "the sunny way," i.e., achieving a solution through diplomatic negotiations rather than imposing one through legislation, stating during the federal election campaign:Laurier won the election and became the 7th Prime Minister of Canada.
Laurier–Greenway Compromise, 1896 This particular period of the Manitoba schools crisis ended on 16 November 1896 upon a compromise developed between Prime Minister
Wilfrid Laurier and Premier of Manitoba
Thomas Greenway, called the
Laurier–Greenway Compromise (officially titled the
Terms of Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Manitoba for the Settlement of the School Question), which amended the
Public Schools Act. This agreement did not reverse the 1890 legislation; instead, it allowed for religious instruction (i.e., Catholic education) in Manitoba's public schools, under certain conditions, for 30 minutes at the end of each day. They also re-established a Catholic school board, but without government funding, and Catholic teachers could be hired in the public schools, also under particular conditions. Relying on Merry del Val's report, Leo XIII produced a papal encyclical
Affari vos, in which he advised the Catholics of Manitoba to accept the compromise, while working to improve the situation in the future. == Repeal and resistance (1916–23) ==